Cespedes v State of NSW (Sydney Local Health District) - [2025] NSWPIC 417

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Cespedes v State of NSW (Sydney Local Health District) [2025] NSWPIC 417
APPLICANT:	Maria Cespedes
RESPONDENT:	State of NSW (Sydney Local Health District)
MEMBER:	Fiona Seaton
DATE OF DECISION:	19 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment; whether the applicant sustained consequential left shoulder and/or cervical spine injuries as a result of accepted right shoulder injury; Held – the applicant sustained a consequential left shoulder injury; award for respondent for claimed consequential cervical spine injury; matter remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment resulting from right shoulder, left shoulder, and scarring.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained a consequential left shoulder injury as a result of the accepted right shoulder injury on 19 January 2017. 2. Award for the respondent with respect to the claim made for a consequential cervical spine injury. 3. The matter is to be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for assessment as follows: (a) Date of injury: 19 January 2017 (b) Body systems/parts: right upper extremity (shoulder), left upper extremity (shoulder), and scarring (TEMSKI) (c) Method of assessment: whole person impairment. 4. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: (a) application to resolve a dispute and attached documents; (b) reply and attached documents, and (c) respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 10 July 2025 and attached document. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Ms Maria Cespedes, was employed by the respondent as a ward assistant at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital for about 35 years commencing in 1986.
On 19 January 2017, the applicant injured her right shoulder while lifting down a five litre chemical bottle. Following right shoulder revision surgery on 30 July 2021 she was cleared for suitable duties however none were available, and she has not worked since.
The applicant alleges she sustained consequential left shoulder and cervical spine injuries as a result of her accepted right shoulder injury. On 2 May 2023, she claimed lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) for 18% whole person impairment (WPI) as a result of injury to the left and right upper extremities, cervical spine and scarring (TEMSKI).
A notice issued on 8 September 2023 under s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act) disputes the applicant is entitled to lump sum compensation for the consequential left shoulder and cervical spine conditions.
In the Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) lodged in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 27 May 2025 the applicant claims lump sum compensation for 18% WPI of the left and right upper extremities, the cervical spine and scarring (TEMSKI).
The dispute…

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 Cespedes v State of NSW (Sydney Local Health District)

Details

AGLC: Cespedes v State of NSW (Sydney Local Health District) [2025] NSWPIC 417
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 417
Decision Date: 19 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Cespedes, filed a claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment against the State of NSW (Sydney Local Health District) under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Cespedes sought compensation for alleged permanent impairment due to injuries sustained during employment, specifically a right shoulder injury, and consequential left shoulder and cervical spine injuries. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court, which had to determine whether Cespedes' claimed injuries were indeed consequential to the accepted right shoulder injury.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether Cespedes had sustained a consequential left shoulder injury and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the claim of a consequential cervical spine injury. The court had to examine the medical evidence provided and assess whether the claimed injuries met the criteria for compensation under the Act. This involved determining the causal link between the right shoulder injury and the alleged consequential injuries, as well as evaluating the medical evidence regarding the cervical spine injury.

The court found that Cespedes did sustain a consequential left shoulder injury. However, the claim for a consequential cervical spine injury was not substantiated by the evidence provided. The court emphasised the need for a proper causal link between the original injury and the consequential injuries. Consequently, the court awarded the respondent for the claimed cervical spine injury but remitted the matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to evaluate the whole person impairment resulting from the right shoulder, left shoulder, and scarring.

The court's determination included an order for the respondent to pay compensation for the left shoulder injury and mandated a referral to a Medical Assessor for a comprehensive assessment of the overall impairment. This decision ensured that Cespedes would receive appropriate compensation for the injuries that were substantiated by the evidence.

Orders