Cayir v Woolworths Group Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 345

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Cayir v Woolworths Group Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 345
APPLICANT:	Umit Cayir
RESPONDENT:	Woolworths Group Limited
MEMBER:	Catherine McDonald
DATE OF DECISION:	28 June 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; re-determination after successful appeal; relevance of findings in earlier proceedings against another employer; comity; Secretary, Department of Education v Dawking; section 4(b)(i) injury; section 15 applied; Crisp v Chapman, Kelly v Glenroc Pastoral Co, Grate Lace Pty Ltd t/as Grate Lace Bricklaying Co v Thiess Watkins White (Constructions) Pty Ltd, and Statecover Mutual v Cameron; Held – remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. I remit the matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess the applicant’s permanent impairment: Body system: left upper extremity (wrist and elbow). Date of injury: 12 June 2019. Method of assessment: whole person impairment. 2. The documents to be sent to the Medical Assessor are: a. Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents; b. Reply; c. respondent’s Application to Admit Late Documents dated 28 September 2022, attaching Dr Gupta’s notes, and d. respondent’s Application to Admit Late Documents dated 4 April 2024 (omitting pages 15 to 70).

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Between 2002 and 2018 Umit Cayir was employed in the bakery of a supermarket at Figtree, operated by Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Coles). During that time, Mr Cayir suffered an injury to his left wrist, for which he underwent surgery. In September 2018 he ceased working for Coles and began working for Woolworths Group Limited (Woolworths), also in a supermarket bakery but in a smaller store. He regarded the duties as lighter than those at Coles but he ceased working after a short period.
On 12 June 2019 Mr Cayir made a claim for permanent impairment compensation in respect of both of his arms against Coles, relying on a deemed date of injury of 1 August 2009, the date when he first reported left wrist pain to Coles. Coles rejected the claim, relying on ss 15 and 16 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) and saying that the injury was a disease and that it was not the last employer who employed Mr Cayir in employment to the nature of which the disease was due.
Mr Cayir commenced proceedings against Coles which were determined by an arbitrator of the Workers Compensation Commission on 26 May 2020.[1] Arbitrator Burge (as he then was) determined that the deemed date of injury in respect of both of Mr Cayir’s arms was
12 June 2019 and that as at that date, Woolworths was the last employer who employed
[1] Cayir v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2020] NSWWCC 170.
Mr Cayir in employment to the nature of which the disease was due. Member Burge (to use his current title) held that he could not make findings against Woolworths, which was not a party to the proceedings,…

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 Cayir v Woolworths Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Cayir v Woolworths Group Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 345
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 345
Decision Date: 28 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cayir v Woolworths Group Ltd concerned a claim by the applicant, Mr Cayir, against his employer, Woolworths Group Ltd, for workers compensation. The case was heard in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The primary issue before the tribunal was whether Mr Cayir was entitled to workers compensation following a successful appeal against a previous rejection of his claim. The tribunal had to consider the relevance of findings made in an earlier proceeding against another employer, and whether these findings should be given weight in the current proceedings.

The tribunal addressed the question of whether it was appropriate to consider findings from an earlier proceeding in a subsequent claim against a different employer. The tribunal examined the principle of comity, as discussed in Secretary, Department of Education v Dawking, and considered whether such findings should be respected. The tribunal also evaluated whether the injury sustained by Mr Cayir met the criteria of a section 4(b)(i) injury under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and whether section 15 applied to the circumstances of the case. The tribunal referred to several precedent cases including Crisp v Chapman, Kelly v Glenroc Pastoral Co, Grate Lace Pty Ltd t/as Grate Lace Bricklaying Co v Thiess Watkins White (Constructions) Pty Ltd, and Statecover Mutual v Cameron to assist in its determination.

The tribunal concluded that the case should be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the appropriate compensation. The tribunal found that the findings from the earlier proceeding were not determinative and did not bind the tribunal in its current assessment of Mr Cayir's claim. The tribunal emphasised that each claim must be evaluated on its own merits, and the findings from a previous employer do not automatically transfer to a new claim. The tribunal ordered that the case be returned to the President for the necessary medical assessment to ascertain the appropriate level of compensation for Mr Cayir.

Orders