Chand v Bunnings Group Limited - [2023] NSWPIC 476

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER

CITATION:

Chand v Bunnings Group Limited [2023] NSWPIC 476

APPLICANT:

Krishant Chand

RESPONDENT:

Bunnings Group Limited

MEMBER:

Gaius Whiffin

DATE OF DECISION:

15 September 2023

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for injuries to back and right leg; claim for weekly benefits compensation and proposed future treatment expenses pursuant to section 60; consideration of applicant’s and witnesses’ statements, medical reports and other treatment records, claim correspondence, and factual material; consideration of whether the applicant sustained an injury in accordance with section 4 on 8 March 2021; consideration of whether if so, the surgery proposed for the applicant by Dr New (a bilateral L4/5 and L5/S1 decompression, laminotomy and neurolysis and right L5/S1 disc excision) is reasonably necessary medical treatment as a result of the injury (if found) on 8 March 2021; McCarthy v Patrick Stevedores No 1 Pty Limited, Maitland City Council v McInnes, Jones v Dunkel, Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Limited, Kennedy Cleaning Services Pty Limited v Petkoska, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May, Castro v State Transit Authority (NSW), Galluzzo v Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Dayton v Coles Supermarkets Pty Ltd, Rose v Health Commission (NSW), Diab v NRMA Limited, Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Limited considered; Held – the applicant sustained a personal injury to his back and right leg on 8 March 2021, arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent, in accordance with section 4; his employment with the respondent was a substantial contributing factor to the injury in accordance with section 9A; the surgery proposed for the applicant by Dr New (a bilateral L4/5 and L5/S1 decompression, laminotomy and neurolysis and right L5/S1 disc excision) is reasonably necessary medical treatment for him as a result of his injury on 8 March 2021; awards for the applicant pursuant to section 37 from 22 February 2023, and pursuant to section 60 of the Act; specific award that the respondent pay the costs of and incidental to the surgery proposed for the applicant by Dr New.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

Member:

Gaius Whiffin

The Commission determines:

1. The applicant sustained a personal injury to his back and right leg on 8 March 2021, arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent, in accordance with s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). His employment with the respondent was a substantial contributing factor to the injury in accordance with s 9A of the 1987 Act.

2. The surgery proposed for the applicant by Dr New (a bilateral L4/5 and L5/S1 decompression, laminotomy and neurolysis and right L5/S1 disc excision) is reasonably necessary medical treatment for him as a result of his injury on 8 March 2021.

The Commission orders:

1. There will be an award in favour of the applicant pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act in the amount of $815.07…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chand v Bunnings 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NSWPIC 476
Decision Date: 15 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chand v Bunnings Group Limited involved the applicant, Mr Chand, who sought compensation for injuries to his back and right leg sustained during his employment with Bunnings Group Limited. The dispute was heard by the relevant tribunal which had jurisdiction under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The primary issues for the tribunal to decide were whether Mr Chand sustained a compensable injury on 8 March 2021 and if so, whether the proposed surgical treatment by Dr New was reasonably necessary as a result of that injury. The tribunal examined the applicant’s and witnesses’ statements, medical reports, treatment records, and other relevant documents to ascertain the facts of the case.

The tribunal considered various legal precedents to guide its decision, including references to statutory provisions under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and past cases such as McCarthy v Patrick Stevedores No 1 Pty Limited and others. It meticulously evaluated the evidence to determine if the injury met the criteria for compensation under section 4 of the Act and if the proposed surgery was a necessary consequence of the injury under section 60. The tribunal concluded that Mr Chand did indeed sustain a compensable injury on the specified date, and that the surgery proposed by Dr New was reasonably necessary to address the injury sustained.

Following its analysis, the tribunal ruled in favour of Mr Chand, awarding him compensation for his injuries under section 37 and for the proposed future treatment expenses under section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The tribunal also mandated that Bunnings Group Limited cover the costs associated with the proposed surgery. The decision emphasised the importance of substantial contributing factors in employment-related injuries and the necessity of reasonable medical treatment in such cases.

Orders