Chatfield v Total Fire Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 70

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Chatfield v Total Fire Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 70
APPLICANT:	Troy Chatfield
RESPONDENT:	Total Fire Solutions (Aust) Pty. Limited
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
DATE OF DECISION:	4 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether applicant suffered an injury; applicant felt pain in the course of normal duties; initial diagnosis of a strain; more significant pain sometime later; investigations revealed that applicant had a type of bone cancer (Ewing’s sarcoma) and suffered a pathological fracture; Held – applicant did not suffer an injury; alternatively employment was not a substantial contributing factor to injury; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Award for the respondent. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Chatfield’s case is, by any stretch, not usual for the types of matters seen in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission). There are elements commonly seen, including heavy work, lifting, and significant symptoms in a body part. The complicating factor in this case is that shortly following the onset of symptoms in the body part alleged to be injured (shoulder) Mr Chatfield was diagnosed with a rare type of bone cancer, Ewing’s sarcoma.
There are some facts in this case that are incontrovertible – Mr Chatfield had cancer, he had surgery to treat that cancer, and has been left with a significant degree of impairment in his shoulder as a consequence.
The issue in dispute in this case concerns the connection between employment and what Mr Chatfield has today, that is a greatly impaired right arm.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the applicant suffered a personal injury pursuant to s 4(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), to which employment was a substantial contributing factor pursuant to s 9A, or in the alternative, and
(b) whether the applicant suffered an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a disease, to which employment was the main contributing facto, pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

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. The matter proceeded to a conciliation/arbitration hearing on 11 February 2025. Mr Carney of counsel appeared for the applicant, instructed by Law Partners. Mr Stockley of counsel appeared for the respondent, instructed by Lee Legal Group.
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

The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and considered in making this determination:
(a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents;
(b) Reply…

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 Chatfield v Total Fire Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd 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: [2025] NSWPIC 70
Decision Date: 4 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Chatfield, filed a claim for workers' compensation against Total Fire Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd, the respondent, seeking compensation for an injury sustained during the course of employment. Chatfield experienced pain while performing his duties, which was initially diagnosed as a strain. However, subsequent investigations revealed that Chatfield had a type of bone cancer, specifically Ewing’s sarcoma, which had led to a pathological fracture. The central dispute in this case was whether Chatfield's condition constituted an injury as defined by the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and, if so, whether his employment was a substantial contributing factor.

The court was tasked with determining whether the pain Chatfield felt was an injury within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Additionally, the court had to consider if Chatfield's employment was a substantial contributing factor to the development of his Ewing’s sarcoma and subsequent pathological fracture. This required an analysis of the medical evidence and an understanding of the legal definitions pertinent to workers' compensation claims.

The court concluded that Chatfield did not suffer an injury within the meaning of the Act. It found that the pain he experienced was not an injury and that even if it had been, his employment was not a substantial contributing factor to his Ewing’s sarcoma. The court found that the cancer was not causally linked to his employment, as there was no evidence that his work conditions or activities contributed to the onset of the disease. Consequently, the court dismissed Chatfield's claim and awarded costs to the respondent.

The court's final order was that Chatfield's claim for workers' compensation was dismissed, and costs were awarded to Total Fire Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd. This decision underscored the importance of establishing a direct causal link between employment and the injury in workers' compensation claims.

Orders