| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
Citation: | Cayir v Woolworths Group Limited [2023] NSWPIC 78 |
| APPLICANT: | Umit Cayir |
| RESPONDENT: | Woolworths Group Limited |
| Member: | Michael Inglis |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 3 March 2022 |
| DATE OF AMENDMENT: | 28 March 2023 |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether applicant suffered injury in the form of a disease of gradual onset to the left and/or right upper extremities within the meaning of sections 15 and 16; whether injury resulted in permanent impairment; Held – the applicant suffers from a disease of gradual onset in his left upper extremity; the disease process was aggravated, accelerated, exacerbated or deteriorated in the course of his employment and his employment was the main contributing factor; the applicant has not established that he suffers from a disease of gradual onset in his right upper extremity; the applicant has not established that any condition that he may suffer from in his right upper extremity is permanent; matter referred to the President of the Personal Injury Commission for referral for medical assessment of permanent impairment of the left upper extremity. |
| determinations made: | 1. The applicant suffers from a disease of gradual onset in his left upper extremity namely recurrent ganglion and de Quervain’s tenosynovitis. 2. The disease process was aggravated, accelerated, exacerbated or deteriorated in the course of his employment and his employment was the main contributing factor. 3. The applicant has not established that he suffers from a disease of gradual onset in his right upper extremity. 4. The applicant has not established that any condition that he may suffer from in his right upper extremity is permanent. 5. Matter referred to the President for referral for medical assessment of permanent impairment of the left upper extremity. 6. Material to be provided to the Medical Assessor: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attachments; (b) Reply and attachments, and (c) Applications to Admit Late Documents and attachments. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
Umit Cayir (the applicant) is presently aged 49 years.
At age 19, he commenced work at Coles in Figtree. His duties included moving large bakery pans, kneading dough, stock replenishment, cleaning, working ovens, donuts, icing and traying cookies.
During his employment with Coles Bakery, he experienced immense pain in his left wrist which he believed was due to the repetitive movement of his employment duties as a baker.
On 16 September 2018, he left Coles and began work with Woolworths Group Limited (the respondent). He was also employed there as a baker but described his work there as lighter.
He eventually ceased working with Woolworths after a comparatively short period of time.
Whilst working in the bakery at the Figtree store of Coles, the applicant developed an injury to his left wrist.
After leaving employment, the applicant made a claim for permanent impairment compensation on Coles by a letter from his solicitors dated 12 June 2019. He alleged a deemed date of injury to be 1 August 2009, which was the date he apparently…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Cayir v Woolworths Group Limited and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWPIC 78
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the applicant suffered from a disease of gradual onset in his left upper extremity. The disease process was determined to have been aggravated, accelerated, exacerbated, or deteriorated during the course of his employment, with his employment being the main contributing factor. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant suffered from a disease of gradual onset in his right upper extremity. Furthermore, the court held that the applicant had not established that any condition he might suffer from in his right upper extremity was permanent. Consequently, the matter was referred to the President of the Personal Injury Commission for a medical assessment of the permanent impairment of the left upper extremity.
The court's decision hinged on the specific statutory definitions and criteria outlined in the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The evidence presented concerning the applicant's left upper extremity was deemed sufficient to meet the statutory requirements for compensation. In contrast, the evidence regarding the right upper extremity did not meet the necessary threshold. The court's ruling ensures that the applicant's legitimate claim for the left upper extremity will proceed, while the claim for the right upper extremity will be further assessed by the Personal Injury Commission.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.