Chahine v The Council of the City of Sydney - [2024] NSWPIC 593

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Chahine v The Council of the City of Sydney [2024] NSWPIC 593
APPLICANT:	Evelin Chahine
RESPONDENT:	The Council of the City of Sydney
MEMBER:	Adam Halstead
DATE OF DECISION:	22 October 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; medical expenses claim; applicant suffered accepted cervical spine injury and seeks an order the respondent pay costs of, and incidental to C5/6 and C6/7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery; disputed as not reasonably necessary; applicant claims lumbar spine condition as consequential to cervical spine injury; lumbar spine injured during physiology treatment for cervical spine; causal chain argued by applicant; Held – the proposed treatment for cervical spine is reasonably necessary as a result of the injury; respondent is ordered to pay the costs of, and incidental to, the recommended surgery; evidence does not reasonably establish lumbar spine condition consequential to cervical spine injury.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffered an injury to her cervical spine in the course of her employment with the respondent on 27 April 2017. 2. The surgery proposed by Dr Khong to treat the applicant’s injury is reasonably necessary. 3. The respondent is to pay the costs of and incidental to the C5/6 and C6/7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, as recommended by Dr Khong. 4. Award for the respondent in relation to the applicant’s claim for a consequential lumbar spine condition arising from the cervical spine injury. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Evelyn Chahine, injured her cervical spine in the course of employment with the respondent, the Council of the City of Sydney. The respondent accepts that injury to have been work-related. A related claim by the applicant for medical expenses to have surgery, a C5/6 and C6/7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, has been declined on the basis it is not reasonably necessary.
It is also claimed the applicant’s lumbar spine was injured on 11 July 2018 while receiving treatment for the neck injury. The applicant claims her lumbar spine condition arises consequentially from the work-related injury, which is denied by the respondent.
An Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) related to the claim was filed by the applicant in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 17 July 2024. The ARD refers to a dispute about medical expenses for surgery to both her cervical spine and lumbar spine.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The matter was before the Commission for an arbitration hearing on 20 September 2024. Ms Grotte of counsel, instructed by Mr Naddaf solicitor, appeared for the applicant. Mr Forster solicitor instructed Mr Necovski of counsel who appeared for the respondent.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have endeavoured to bring the parties to the dispute to an acceptable settlement and am satisfied that…

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 Chahine v The Council of the City of Sydney

Details

AGLC: Chahine v The Council of the City of Sydney [2024] NSWPIC 593
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 593
Decision Date: 22 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Chahine v The Council of the City of Sydney, the applicant, Chahine, sought an order from the court that the respondent, The Council of the City of Sydney, pay for the costs associated with C5/6 and C6/7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery. Chahine, having suffered an accepted cervical spine injury, argued that the proposed treatment was reasonably necessary. However, the respondent disputed the claim, contending that the surgery was not reasonably necessary. Additionally, Chahine sought compensation for a lumbar spine condition which he argued was a consequence of his cervical spine injury. The lumbar spine condition was sustained during physiological treatment for the cervical spine. The applicant thus argued that there was a causal chain linking the lumbar spine condition to the cervical spine injury.

The court had to decide whether the proposed cervical spine surgery was reasonably necessary as a result of the injury. It also had to determine whether the lumbar spine condition was a consequence of the cervical spine injury. The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and assessed the reasonableness of the proposed treatment and the causal link between the cervical and lumbar spine injuries. In its reasoning, the court concluded that the proposed treatment for the cervical spine was reasonably necessary as a direct result of the injury. However, the evidence did not reasonably establish that the lumbar spine condition was consequential to the cervical spine injury.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the costs of, and incidental to, the recommended surgery for the cervical spine injury. No order was made in relation to the lumbar spine condition as the court found that the evidence did not support a causal link to the cervical spine injury. The court thus upheld the applicant's claim for the cervical spine treatment costs but dismissed the claim regarding the lumbar spine condition.

Orders