Cizmar v D&P Specialists Pty Ltd - [2023] NSWPIC 483

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Cizmar v D&P SPECIALISTS PTY LTD [2023] NSWPIC 483
APPLICANT:	Stevan Cizmar
RESPONDENT:	D and P Specialists Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Lea Drake
DATE OF DECISION:	19 September 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for whole person impairment; dispute as to entitlement for consequential complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) arising out of medical treatment, an injection, for an injury suffered on 19 April 2019; Held – award in favour of the applicant in respect of a consequential condition of CRPS arising from the medical treatment, an injection, undergone by the applicant for treatment of the injury; lump sum claim is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess permanent impairment.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. There will be an award in favour of the applicant in respect of a consequential condition of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) arising from the medical treatment, an injection, undergone by the applicant for treatment of an injury he suffered in the employ of the respondent on 2 April 2019. 2. The lump sum claim is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess permanent impairment as follows: (a) Date of injury: 2 April 2019; (b) Body system: cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine and the condition of CRPS; (c) Method of assessment: whole-body impairment, and (d) Documents to be referred: Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, Reply and attached documents and Applications to Admit Late Documents and attachments.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Stevan Cizmar, (the applicant), was a shop fitter employed by D and P Specialists Pty Ltd, (the respondent), when he was injured loading a truck on 2 April 2019. He has undergone extensive medical interventions. He now seeks referral to a Medical Assessor for an assessment of whole body impairment. Whilst there are a number of agreed areas of injury for referral to a Medical Assessor, there is an outstanding dispute as to whether the applicant has suffered CRPS and, if so, whether it occurred as a consequence of the medical treatment for this injury.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

The issue in dispute is whether the applicant is suffering from CRPS and whether it arose following a CT guided cervical perineural injection (the injection). The applicant relies on the opinion of his treating specialist Dr Wallace, Associate Professor Boesel and
Dr Jane Standen. The respondent rejects the applicant’s claim and relies on the opinion of
Dr Gorman, who dismisses the diagnosis of CRPS and propounds an alternate diagnosis of a somatoform disorder, a functional neurological disorder, and of Dr Bisht who propounds an alternate diagnosis of a somatic symptom disorder.

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. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I…

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 Cizmar v D&P Specialists 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: [2023] NSWPIC 483
Decision Date: 19 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cizmar v D&P Specialists Pty Ltd, the applicant, Cizmar, sought compensation for whole person impairment resulting from complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) that arose as a consequence of medical treatment for an injury sustained during employment. The dispute centred around whether Cizmar was entitled to compensation for the CRPS, which he claimed developed following a medical injection administered as part of the treatment for his initial workplace injury. The matter was heard in the Workers Compensation Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether Cizmar's CRPS was a compensable injury under the relevant workers compensation legislation and, if so, the extent to which D&P Specialists Pty Ltd, as the respondent, was liable for the condition. The court had to determine if the CRPS was a direct consequence of the initial workplace injury or if it arose from the subsequent medical treatment. The court also needed to address the issue of whether the CRPS qualified as a separate, compensable injury.

The court found in favour of Cizmar, concluding that his CRPS was a consequential injury arising from the medical treatment for his initial workplace injury. The judge accepted that the CRPS was a distinct injury, separate from the original injury, and thus compensable under the workers compensation legislation. The court emphasised that the CRPS was not a pre-existing condition but rather a direct consequence of the medical treatment administered for the workplace injury. As a result, the court ruled that D&P Specialists Pty Ltd was liable for the CRPS as a compensable injury. The court remitted the lump sum claim to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess the permanent impairment caused by the CRPS.

The final orders of the court included a determination that Cizmar was entitled to compensation for the consequential CRPS and directed that the lump sum claim be referred to a Medical Assessor to determine the extent of permanent impairment. The decision affirmed that the CRPS, arising from the medical treatment for the initial injury, was a compensable condition under the relevant workers compensation legislation.

Orders