Chapman v Lidcombe Ice Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 294

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER

CITATION: Chapman v Lidcombe Ice Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 294

APPLICANT: Michael Chapman

RESPONDENT: Lidcombe Ice Pty Ltd

MEMBER: John Wynyard

DATE OF DECISION: 25 June 2025

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for administration of botox injections and medicinal cannabis; whether reasonably necessary; claimant had already experienced beneficial effects of both modalities; criticism by respondent that the evidence given in support by the treating specialists had merit; caution to be applied in absence of independent medico-legal opinion; in this case the botox recommendations had such support with regard to cannabis oil treatment, observations made about professionalism of expert who supplied reports on letterhead of a business, and described himself as a top industry expert; Couch v Electus Distribution Pty Ltd considered; Held – both treatments reasonably necessary; the claims were made out.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:
The Commission finds:

1.     The proposed treatment by way of medicinal cannabis oil is reasonably necessary.

2.     The proposed treatment of Botox injections is reasonably necessary.

The Commission determines:

3.     The respondent will pay:

(a)    the sum of $695 in respect of past treatment of medicinal cannabis oil;

(b)    the sum of $2,110 in respect of future Botox injections, and

(c)    the sum of $2,040 in respect of future costs of medicinal cannabis oil at $170 every two months for two years.

STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
1.Michael Chapman, the applicant, brings an action against Lidcombe Ice Proprietary Limited for payment of s 60 expenses together with an order for the payment of future expenses in relation to a Botox injection and the provision of medicinal cannabis oil.
2.Dispute notices were issued and the Application to Resolve a Dispute was duly lodged.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
3.The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) is the proposed provision of Botox injection reasonably necessary?
(b) Is the proposed provision of medicinal cannabis oil reasonably necessary?

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION
4.This matter was heard by Teams on 16 May 2025. The applicant was represented by Mr Josh Beran of counsel instructed by Mr Steve Walker. The respondent was represented by Ms Nicole Compton briefed by Ms Naomi Tancred. Ms Georgia O'Grady appeared for the insurer.
5.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 used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence
6.The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:
(a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, and
(b) Reply and attached documents.

Oral evidence
7.There was no application in relation to oral evidence.

FINDINGS AND REASONS
8.The facts are not in dispute and…

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 Chapman v Lidcombe Ice Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Michael Chapman v Michael Chapman [2025] NSWPIC 294
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 294
Decision Date: 25 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chapman brought an action against Lidcombe Ice Pty Ltd in the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission of New South Wales, seeking reimbursement for the costs of administering botox injections and medicinal cannabis. Chapman claimed that these treatments were reasonably necessary for his condition following a workplace injury. Lidcombe Ice Pty Ltd contested the claim, arguing that the treatments were not reasonably necessary and that the evidence provided by the treating specialists lacked merit.

The legal issues before the court were whether the treatments in question were reasonably necessary for Chapman's condition, and if so, whether the evidence provided by the treating specialists was sufficient to support the claim. The court needed to determine if the specialist evidence was credible and whether independent expert opinion was required to validate the treatment recommendations. Lidcombe Ice Pty Ltd also raised concerns about the professionalism of one of the treating specialists, who provided reports on letterhead of a business and described himself as a top industry expert.

In delivering its decision, the court considered the evidence provided by the treating specialists, noting that Chapman had already experienced beneficial effects from both modalities. The court acknowledged the criticisms of the evidence but emphasised the need for caution in the absence of an independent medico-legal opinion. The court found that the botox recommendations were sufficiently supported, and despite some reservations about the professionalism of one expert, the overall evidence was credible. The court referenced Couch v Electus Distribution Pty Ltd to underscore that the primary consideration was the necessity of the treatments for Chapman's condition. Ultimately, the court held that both the botox injections and the medicinal cannabis treatments were reasonably necessary, and Chapman's claims were made out.

The final orders were that Lidcombe Ice Pty Ltd was required to reimburse Chapman for the costs of the botox injections and medicinal cannabis treatments.

Orders