Carter v Star Track Express Pty Ltd

Case [2015] NSWWCCPD 60
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Carter v Star Track Express Pty Ltd t/as Star Track Express [2015] NSWWCCPD 60
APPELLANT: Melissa Carter
RESPONDENT: Star Track Express Pty Ltd t/as Star Track Express
INSURER: CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd
FILE NUMBER: A1-2208/15
ARBITRATOR: Ms J Snell
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 30 June 2015
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 8 October 2015
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Claim for lump sum compensation as a result of consequential conditions alleged to have resulted from accepted injury to right shoulder; assessment of evidence; whether worker established a prima facie case; principles in Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; 108 CLR 158 considered
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: NSW Compensation Lawyers
Respondent: Gillis Delaney Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

The Arbitrator’s determination of 30 June 2015 is confirmed.

INTRODUCTION

  1. This appeal challenges the Arbitrator’s finding that the worker did not suffer symptoms in her cervical spine and thoracic spine as a result of an accepted injury to her right shoulder. For the reasons explained below, the appeal is unsuccessful and the Arbitrator’s determination is confirmed.

BACKGROUND

  1. The appellant worker, Melissa Carter, performed office duties for the respondent employer, Star Track Express Pty Ltd, from January 2009 until 30 June 2013. On 18 May 2010, she tripped at work and fell, injuring her right elbow and right shoulder. The insurer accepted liability for this injury and paid compensation for surgery to Ms Carter’s right shoulder (a rotator cuff repair) performed by Dr Duckworth, orthopaedic surgeon, on 29 September 2011.

  2. In October/November 2011, Ms Carter’s right arm was immobilised in a sling. She gave evidence that, during this period, she was conscious of constant pressure on her neck, shoulder and mid-back area.

  3. On 10 November 2011, Ms Carter returned to work for four hours per day, continuing to wear a sling on and off, though it is not known for how long.

  4. Ms Carter gave evidence, in a statement dated 3 December 2014, that her neck and mid-back pain became “noticeably worse” about six months after the operation on her right shoulder and was “somewhat incapacitating as a result of protecting [her] right arm and shoulder”. She had not experienced neck or mid-back symptoms before the right elbow and shoulder injury.

  5. The claim before the Arbitrator was for lump sum compensation as a result of symptoms alleged to have developed in Ms Carter’s left shoulder, thoracic spine (mid-back) and cervical spine (neck) as a result of the accepted injury to the right shoulder (Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452; 10 NSWCCR 796).

  6. Ms Carter’s case was that, because of the injury to her right shoulder, she overused her left shoulder and developed problems with that shoulder. That was especially so when her right arm was in a sling following surgery. Her complaints of left shoulder pain were documented in May 2012 by…

Continue reading Carter v Star Track Express Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Carter v Star Track Express Pty Ltd [2015] NSWWCCPD 60
Case
[2015] NSWWCCPD 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Carter v Star Track Express Pty Ltd, the worker sought compensation for consequential conditions arising from an injury to the right shoulder sustained during employment. The dispute was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The worker alleged that the initial injury had resulted in significant, ongoing health issues, including pain and mobility impairments, which had a profound effect on their life. Star Track Express contested the claim, asserting that the worker had not established a causal link between the initial injury and the claimed consequential conditions.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the worker had established a prima facie case for compensation concerning the consequential conditions. This required the court to consider the principles set out in Watts v Rake, which delineate the requirements for proving a causal connection between an injury and the claimed consequences. The court was tasked with evaluating the evidence presented and determining if the worker had met the necessary burden of proof. This included assessing the medical evidence, the extent of the initial injury, and the subsequent health conditions.

The court examined the evidence thoroughly, considering both the medical reports and the testimonies provided by the parties. It found that the worker had not sufficiently demonstrated a causal link between the initial injury and the consequential conditions. The court emphasised the necessity for clear and compelling evidence to establish such a connection, in line with the principles from Watts v Rake. Consequently, the court upheld the Arbitrator’s determination, confirming the decision made on 30 June 2015.

In summary, the court upheld the Arbitrator's decision, rejecting the worker's claim for compensation concerning the consequential conditions. The worker's burden of proving a causal link between the initial injury and the claimed conditions was not met, thus the determination was confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Arbitrator’s determination of 30 June 2015 is confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.