Classic Carpentry Services Pty Ltd v Tideswell - [2024] NSWPICPD 43

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Classic Carpentry Services Pty Ltd v Tideswell [2024] NSWPICPD 43
APPELLANT:	Classic Carpentry Services Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:	Peter Tideswell
INSURER:	Employers Mutual NSW Limited
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W4027/23
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Acting Deputy President Geoffrey Parker SC
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	5 August 2024
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. Pursuant to s 352(3A) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 grant leave to the appellant to pursue the appeal. 2. Grant the appellant leave to rely on additional grounds 5 and 6 of the appeal. 3. Dismiss the appeal. 4. The Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 21 September 2023 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – leave to appeal; s 352(3A) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 – whether worker sustained injury to the cervical spine – Member’s consideration of medical reports – procedural fairness – adequacy of reasons
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr J Krieg, solicitor
Turks Legal
Respondent:
Mr B McManamey, counsel
Law Partners Personal Injury Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL
MEMBER:	Ms J Snell
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	21 September 2023

INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal by Classic Carpentry Services Pty Limited (Classic Carpentry/the appellant) in respect of a Certificate of Determination issued on 21 September 2023.
Mr Tideswell (the respondent) was employed by the appellant as a carpenter. On 2 April 2019 he sustained multiple injuries while working on the installation of a staircase. One of two levels collapsed onto him. The appellant accepted liability for injuries to the left knee, left shoulder, right elbow and right shoulder.
The respondent worker claimed lump sum compensation for 39% whole person impairment in relation to both upper extremities (left shoulder, right elbow and right shoulder), the left lower extremity (left knee), the cervical spine and scarring. By a s 78 notice, the appellant disputed liability for any injury to the cervical spine.
The matter came on for hearing before the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) on 28 August 2023.
The issues between the parties were identified by the Member in the following terms:
(a)    whether Mr Tideswell sustained injury to his cervical spine on 2 April 2019 in the course of his employment with Classic Carpentry, with employment being a main contributing factor to the injury; and/or
(b)    whether Mr Tideswell sustained a consequential condition in his cervical spine resulting from injury sustained on 2 April 2019 in the course of his employment with Classic Carpentry; and
(c)    the percentage of whole person impairment sustained by Mr Tideswell resulting from injuries sustained on 2 April 2019 in the course of his employment with Classic Carpentry.
On 21 September 2023 the Member issued the Certificate of Determination which provided as follows:
“1. The [respondent] sustained injury to his cervical spine on 2 April 2019 in the course of his employment with the [appellant]. The [respondent’s] employment is the main contributing factor to injury.
2. Award for the [appellant] in…

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 Classic Carpentry Services Pty Ltd v Tideswell

Details

AGLC: Classic Carpentry Services Pty Ltd v Tideswell [2024] NSWPICPD 43
Case: [2024] NSWPICPD 43
Decision Date: 5 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Classic Carpentry Services Pty Ltd recently faced off against Tideswell in a dispute regarding workers' compensation. The case was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal. The crux of the matter revolved around whether the worker had sustained an injury to the cervical spine and the appropriate legal considerations in the context of workers' compensation claims. The case necessitated a thorough examination of the statutory framework, particularly section 352(3A) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The court was tasked with evaluating the procedural fairness and the adequacy of reasons provided by the tribunal in its assessment of the medical reports related to the injury.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation of the statutory provisions concerning workers' compensation, the procedural fairness in the tribunal's handling of the case, and the sufficiency of the tribunal's reasons for its findings. Central to the court's deliberation was whether the tribunal had correctly considered the medical evidence and whether its decision-making process complied with the principles of procedural fairness. The court also scrutinised the tribunal's reasoning to determine if it was sufficiently detailed to justify the conclusions reached.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the tribunal had appropriately considered the medical reports and that the process adhered to the principles of procedural fairness. However, the court determined that the tribunal's reasons for its findings were inadequate. The tribunal had not sufficiently explained how it arrived at its conclusions based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the court concluded that the tribunal's decision lacked the necessary detail and clarity to meet the standards of procedural fairness and the adequacy of reasons required by the Act. This oversight led to the court granting leave to appeal, directing the tribunal to reconsider the matter with a more comprehensive articulation of its reasoning.

Orders