Carpenter v Federation Council - [2024] NSWPIC 199

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Carpenter v Federation Council [2024] NSWPIC 199
APPLICANT:	Noel Eric Carpenter
RESPONDENT:	Federation Council
SENIOR MEMBER:	Kerry Haddock
DATE OF DECISION:	22 April 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for cost of proposed left-sided decompression surgery at L4/5, in respect of accepted injury to lumbar spine; respondent conceded that the proposed surgery was reasonably necessary but disputed that it was reasonably necessary as a result of the injury; respondent maintained that the Commission did not have jurisdiction, due to the provisions of section 59A; applicant submitted the Commission has the power to make a finding as to the reasonable necessity of the proposed surgery; consideration of Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd v Fogarty and Flying Solo Properties Pty Ltd t/as Artee Signs v Collet; Held – Commission has jurisdiction to make a finding as to the reasonable necessity of the proposed surgery as a result of the injury; finding that the proposed surgery is reasonably necessary as a result of the injury.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The surgery as claimed by the applicant, that is left-sided decompression surgery at L4/5, is reasonably necessary as a result of injury on 20 July 2005.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Noel Eric Carpenter (Mr Carpenter) is employed by the respondent, Federation Council, (the council) as a gardener.
Mr Carpenter sustained an injury to his back on 20 July 2005 when he fell through a square metal manhole cover.
The incident and injury report register completed by the applicant on or about 20 July 2005, stated:
“While walking over stormwater pit, lid on pit turns over when stood on. I fell in being struck on head as lid turned [illegible]. I bounce on edge of pit (left hip) resulting in severe bruising & sore to neck. Co-worker Brad Kenny removed the lid from on me and get me.”
The nature of the injury was stated to be severe bruising. The location of the injury was left hip/head.
Liability for injury to the applicant’s lumbar spine has been accepted.
The applicant completed an Employee Claim Form (the claim form) on 22 March 2022. It stated “worsening of an injury, previous. Falling into stormwater pit (2006).” The injury was a lower back injury. The injury had not resolved, “required surgery.”
On 10 January 2023, StateCover Mutual Limited (StateCover), the respondent’s insurer, issued the applicant with a notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act). The date of injury was stated to be 22 March 2022.
StateCover disputed that the applicant had sustained injury, including a “disease injury” to his lumbar spine; that employment was a substantial contributing factor to any injury or pathology to his lumbar spine; and that he was entitled to either weekly payments or medical or related treatment.
By letter dated 15 May 2023, Mr Carpenter’s solicitors requested on his behalf that StateCover review its decision.
On 29…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Carpenter v Federation Council

Details

AGLC: Carpenter v Federation Council [2024] NSWPIC 199
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 199
Decision Date: 22 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Carpenter v Federation Council, the applicant, Mr. Carpenter, sought a determination regarding the cost of proposed left-sided decompression surgery at L4/5, in relation to an accepted injury to his lumbar spine. The respondent, the Federation Council, conceded that the proposed surgery was reasonably necessary but contested that it was reasonably necessary as a consequence of the injury. Furthermore, the respondent argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter, citing section 59A of the relevant legislation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commission had the authority to make a finding regarding the reasonable necessity of the proposed surgery as a result of the injury. This issue was considered in light of precedent cases such as Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd v Fogarty and Flying Solo Properties Pty Ltd t/as Artee Signs v Collet. The applicant contended that the Commission possessed the power to determine the reasonable necessity of the proposed surgery, while the respondent maintained that such a decision fell outside the Commission's jurisdiction.

The court found that the Commission did indeed have the jurisdiction to make a finding as to the reasonable necessity of the proposed surgery as a result of the injury. In reaching this conclusion, the court considered the relevant provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, as well as the aforementioned precedent cases. The court held that the Commission's jurisdiction extended to making a finding regarding the reasonable necessity of the proposed surgery. Consequently, the court determined that the proposed surgery was reasonably necessary as a result of the injury.

The final orders of the court mandated that the respondent, the Federation Council, bear the cost of the proposed left-sided decompression surgery at L4/5 for the applicant, Mr. Carpenter, as a result of his accepted injury to the lumbar spine. This decision was based on the finding that the Commission had jurisdiction to determine the reasonable necessity of the proposed surgery and that such surgery was indeed reasonably necessary as a consequence of the injury.

Orders