Chandi v Busways Group Pty Ltd - [2023] NSWPIC 417

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
Citation:	Chandi v Busways Group Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPIC 417
APPLICANT:	Reji Chandi
RESPONDENT:	Busways Group Pty Ltd
Member:	Jacqueline Snell
DATE OF DECISION:	16 August 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; the applicant claims weekly compensation payable under section 38(2); the respondent accepts the applicant sustained injury to his left shoulder in the course of his employment with the respondent; the respondent disputes the applicant sustained injury to his neck to which his employment is a substantial contributing factor to injury; the respondent disputes the applicant sustained consequential condition in his right shoulder and the respondent disputes the applicant is likely to continue to indefinitely have no current work capacity resulting from injury sustained in the course of his employment with the respondent as prescribed by section 38(2); Held – the applicant sustained injury to his neck in the course of his employment with the respondent with his employment being a substantial contributing factor to injury; the applicant sustained consequential condition in his right shoulder; the applicant is likely to continue indefinitely to have no current work capacity from injury sustained in the course of his employment with the respondent and has entitlement to weekly compensation payable under section 38(2).
determinations made:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained injury to his neck on 11 February 2019 in the course of his employment with the respondent and his employment was a substantial contributing factor to injury. 2. The applicant has sustained consequential condition in his right shoulder. 3. The applicant has had no current capacity for work since 13 August 2022 resulting from injury sustained on 11 February 2019 in the course of his employment with the respondent and is likely to continue to indefinitely have no current work capacity resulting from that injury. 4. The applicant has entitlement to weekly compensation payable under s 38(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 from 13 August 2022 to date and continuing in accordance with the Workers Compensation Act 1987 at the rate of $1,056 per week (subject to indexation) with credit to the respondent for weekly compensation already paid to the applicant during that period.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Reji Chandi (Mr Chandi) was previously employed by the respondent, Busways Group Pty Ltd (Busways), working as a bus driver. Mr Chandi commenced working with Busways in July 2016. Mr Chandi is currently 51 years of age.
In these proceedings Mr Chandi claims weekly compensation payable under s 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) resulting from injury sustained on 11 February 2019 in the course of his employment with Busways. Mr Chandi claims weekly benefits payable on an ongoing basis from 13 August 2022.
The circumstances of injury are described in the following terms:
“At the time of injury the applicant was employed by the respondent as a bus driver. On the date of injury the applicant was steering a very tight steering wheel. As he was…

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 Chandi v Busways Group Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Chandi v Busways Group Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPIC 417
Case: [2023] NSWPIC 417
Decision Date: 16 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Chandi, commenced proceedings in the Workers Compensation Magistrates Court seeking weekly compensation for injuries sustained in the course of his employment with Busways Group Pty Ltd. The respondent accepted that Chandi sustained an injury to his left shoulder in the course of his employment, but disputed that he sustained an injury to his neck, that his employment was a substantial contributing factor to his neck injury, and that he had a consequential condition in his right shoulder. The respondent also disputed that Chandi was likely to continue to indefinitely have no current work capacity resulting from his injuries. The court was required to determine whether Chandi had sustained a neck injury in the course of his employment, whether his employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury, whether he had a consequential condition in his right shoulder, and whether he was likely to continue indefinitely to have no current work capacity.

The court held that Chandi had sustained an injury to his neck in the course of his employment with Busways Group Pty Ltd, and that his employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The court also found that Chandi had a consequential condition in his right shoulder, and that he was likely to continue indefinitely to have no current work capacity resulting from his injuries. The court found that the evidence of Chandi's medical experts was persuasive and reliable, and that the respondent's experts had failed to rebut the evidence. The court held that Chandi was entitled to weekly compensation under section 38(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court ordered that Busways Group Pty Ltd pay Chandi weekly compensation for the injuries he sustained in the course of his employment, and that the respondent pay Chandi's costs of the proceedings. The court held that Chandi was entitled to compensation for his injuries, and that the respondent was liable for the payment of compensation. The court found that the respondent had failed to discharge the onus of proving that Chandi's injuries were not caused by his employment, or that his employment was not a substantial contributing factor to his injuries.

Orders