Crellin v Woolworths Group Limited

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
Citation:	Crellin v Woolworths Group Limited & Ors [2023] NSWPIC 299
APPLICANT:	Patricia Crellin
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Woolworths Group Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	EG Fuelco (Australia) Ltd
Member:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	26 June 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for weekly benefits and medical expenses; applicant suffered injuries to her cervical spine in 2011 with first respondent and in 2020 with second respondent; no issue the proposed cervical fusion surgery is a medical necessary, or as to the degree of the applicant’s claimed incapacity, or her preinjury earnings; dispute as to which injury has caused the applicant’s current incapacity for employment and the requirement for future surgery, and if both to what extent; Held – the need for the proposed cervical fusion was brought about as a result of both injuries, apportioned at 50% for each respondent; the applicant’s claimed incapacity for employment is a result of both injuries, apportioned at 50% each; first and second respondents ordered to each pay half of the costs of and incidental to the proposed cervical spine surgery; first and second respondent ordered to each pay half of the applicant’s weekly compensation as claimed in the Application.
determinations made:

The Commission determines:

The applicant suffered an injury to her cervical spine in the course of her employment with the first respondent on 1 August 2011.
The applicant suffered an injury to her cervical spine in the course of her employment with the second respondent on 21 April 2020.
As a result of the applicant’s injuries, she suffered partial incapacity for employment from 19 September 2022 to 12 February 2023; and from 13 February 2023 to date and continuing, suffers a total incapacity for employment.
The applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings were $1,306 per week.
The applicant’s incapacity referred to above is attributable equally between the first and second injuries.

The first and second respondents are to pay the applicant weekly compensation as follows, such amounts to be divided equally between them:
(a) Pursuant to s 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 at the following rates:
(i)from 19 September 2022 to 25 September 2022 - $427 per week;
(ii)from 26 September 2022 to 2 October 2022 - $598 per week;
(iii)from 3 October 2022 to 9 October 2022 – $852 per week;
(iv)from 10 October 2022 to 16 October 2022 – $689 per week;
(v)from 17 October 2022 to 23 October 2022 – $812 per week;
(vi)from 24 October 2022 to 30 October 2022 – $593 per week;
(vii)from 31 October 2022 to 6 November 2022 – $377 per week;
(viii)from 7 November 2022 to 13 November 2022 – $577 per week;
(ix)from 14 November 2022 to 20 November 2022 – $542 per week;
(x)from 21 November 2022 to 27 November 2022 – $906 per week;
(xi)from 28 November 2022 to 4 December 2022 – $1,100 per week;
(xii)from 5 December 2022 to 11 December 2022 – $506 per week, and
(xiii)from 12 December 2022 to 18 December 2022 – $602 per week.
(b) Pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 at the following rates:
(i)from 19 December 2022 to 25 December 2022 – $954 per week;
(ii)from 26 December 2022 to 1 January 2023 – $478 per week;
(iii)from 2 January 2023 to 8 January 2023 – $469 per week;
(iv)from 9 January 2023 to 15 January 2023 – $1,100 per week;
(v)from 16 January 2023 to 21 January 2023 – $631 per week;
(vi)from 23 January 2023 to 29 January 2023 – $583 per week;
(vii)from 30 January 2023 to 5 February 2023 – $871 per week;
(viii)from 6 February 2023 to 12 February 2023 – $551 per week, and
(ix)from 13 February 2023 to date and continuing at $1,100 per week.
The first and second respondents are to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses, apportioned between them at 50% each.
As a result of her injuries, the applicant requires a single level C6/7 anterior cervical discectomy infusion as recommended by Dr Donnellan in his quote dated 3 March 2021.
The surgery recommended by Dr Donnellan is reasonably necessary as a result of both of the applicant’s injuries, apportioned between those injuries at 50% each.
The first and second respondents are to pay the costs of and incidental to the proposed surgery, apportioned between them at 50% each.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 1 August 2011, the applicant, Patricia Crellin was working for Woolworths Group Ltd (the first respondent) as a manager at its Richmond store when she suffered an accepted injury to her cervical spine. On 1 December 2012, as a result of that injury, the applicant underwent a C5/6 decompression and fusion at the hands of Dr Donnellan paid for by the first respondent.
On 1 August 2014, the applicant was assessed by Approved Medical Specialists (AMS) Dr Assem and found to be suffering a 23% whole person impairment to her cervical spine. She states she had a good recovery post-surgery, and approximately six months afterwards, the applicant returned to her full pre-injury duties.
The applicant states that after her surgery, she attended physiotherapy and Pilates to maintain upper body strength and always exercised proper neck care to avoid any aggravation. She states she continued to have some ongoing minor symptoms which occurred on occasions when she overdid activities such as holding her head in a fixed position for extended periods of time, a posture which she avoided by breaking up her work routine as and when she could.
In or about April 2019, the first respondent sold its petrol stations including the applicant’s workplace to the second respondent, EG Fuelco (Australia) Ltd, which trades as Euro Garages Australia. The applicant’s employment and service continued after the sale, and she continued in employment at her normal workplace.
On 21 April 2020, the applicant states she was on her own at the Emu Plains Service Station and had just received a delivery of 15 crates of 2l milk containers which needed to be restacked in the cool room. She states that after moving these crates, she noticed her left arm became fatigued, however, she continued lifting but after approximately the twelfth crate, she overextended and hyperextended her left arm in an outstretched position at which time she felt immediate tightness and pain in her neck which she had not felt since before her surgery in December 2012. The applicant also suffered an injury to her left arm in this incident, however, that injury is not the subject of these proceedings.
The applicant was again referred to Dr Donnellan, treating neurosurgeon, who is of the view she had suffered an aggravation of her neck condition, and as a result requires further surgery.
The second respondent has denied liability for the proposed neck surgery and also for the applicant’s claim for weekly payments. It alleges the requirement for surgery is attributable to the 2011 injury suffered with the first respondent. For its part, the first respondent asserts both the requirement for surgery and the applicant’s incapacity for employment are attributable to the second injury on 21 April 2020.
The applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) are not in issue. Likewise, neither respondent lodged a Wages Schedule disputing the degree of the applicant’s alleged incapacity despite directions that the parties were to lodge and serve competing Wages Schedules not less than seven days before the hearing if there was no agreement between them as to the applicant’s PIAWE and incapacity.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a)    whether the requirement for the applicant’s surgery has been brought about by the 2011 or 2020 injury, or both;
(b)    if both injuries are responsible for the need for surgery, what is the appropriate rate of apportionment between the two respondents;
(c)    whether the 2011 or 2020 injuries or both are responsible for the applicant’s ongoing incapacity for employment, and
(d)    if both injuries are so responsible, what is the appropriate rate of apportionment between them?

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 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.
The parties attended a hearing on 23 May 2023. At the hearing, the applicant was represented by Mr Morgan of counsel instructed by Mr Linsdell. The first respondent was represented by Mr Jones of counsel instructed by Ms Dunn. The second respondent was represented by Mr Rickard of counsel instructed by Mr Lee.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:
(a)    Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) and attached documents;
(b)    first respondent’s Reply and attached documents;
(c)    second respondent’s Reply filed under Application to Admit Late Documents (AALD) dated 30 March 2023, and
(d)    applicant’s AALD dated 16 May 2023.

Oral evidence

There was no oral evidence called at the hearing.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

The cause of the requirement for the proposed surgery

There is no question the proposed surgery is a medical necessity. The question for determination is which of the injuries has led to the requirement for that surgery. Section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) states:
“(1) If, as a result of an injury, received by a worker, it is reasonably necessary that –
a.any medical or related treatment (other than domestic assistance) be given, or
b.any hospital treatment be given, or
c.any ambulance service be provided, or
d.any workplace rehabilitation service be provided,
the worker’s employer is liable to pay, in addition to any other compensation under this Act, the cost of that treatment or service and the related travel expenses specified in subsection (2).”
The salient phrase within s 60 in the context of this matter is whether the requirement for surgery is “as a result of” either of the applicant’s injuries, or both. The “results from” principle of causation applies to s 60 claims.
The principles of causation “and reasonably necessary” are different and must be kept distinct. It is frequently a separation which is lost, or the differing principles misunderstood. The question which is relevant, and highlights the importance of a “common sense” test of causation as set out by his Honour Kirby P (as he then was) in Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452 (Kooragang) is: did the injury bring to light a need for treatment which was going to be necessary anyway or did the injury not only bring to light a need for treatment that was going to be needed anyway, but that treatment is required now and the option to wait and/or try other treatments has been removed?
In this matter, Mr Morgan submitted it was open to the Commission to find either that the need for the applicant’s proposed surgery was brought about as a result of the 2011 injury with the first respondent, or alternatively that the two injuries contributed to the need for surgery on a 50-50 basis. For the first respondent, Mr Jones submitted the requirement for surgery was brought about only after the 2020 injury with the first respondent, and Mr Rickard submitted that either the 2011 injury was solely responsible or alternatively there ought to be a 50-50 apportionment between the two respondents.
Counsel all referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Ozcan v Macarthur Disability Services Ltd [2021] NSWCA 56.
In that matter, the applicant had a work injury in November 2011 in which she suffered injuries to her lumbar spine, thoracic spine and right shoulder. In later work accidents in 2012, she suffered further injuries to her lumbar spine and thoracic spine. The applicant claimed permanent impairment compensation against her employer and was assessed by an AMS to determine the degree of any permanent impairment suffered as a result of her injuries.
Deputy President Wood, on appeal from a decision of an Arbitrator, held the spinal injuries could be assessed together, however, the permanent impairment for the shoulder injury was unable to be aggregated with that for the spinal injuries, because the shoulder injury was obtained in a different injurious event, did not materially contribute to the subsequent spinal injuries and was not the same injury. As a result, the applicant was not entitled to permanent impairment compensation in respect of her shoulder injury.
The Court of Appeal held that the shoulder injury should be assessed with the impairments to the applicant’s spine as the right shoulder injury and thoracic and lumbar spinal injuries “resulted from” the first incident. That is, once it was established that the impairment occasioned to the applicant’s spine from the later injury was attributable to the first, the later impairment should be added to the shoulder impairment arising from the first injury to provide a total figure for the applicant’s whole person impairment. The facts in the current matter differ slightly from those in Ozcan, in that the applicant alleges she suffered injury to the same body system in both events.
In Ozcan, the Court discussed the decision in State Government Insurance Commission v Oakley (1990) 10 MVR 570. Where a work injury involves a subsequent injury, it is relevant to consider the three categories outlined by Malcolm J in Oakley. The three categories are:
“(1)    where the further injury results from a subsequent accident, which would not have occurred had the plaintiff not been in the physical condition caused by the defendant’s negligence, the added damage should be treated as caused by that negligence;
(2)     where the further injury results from a subsequent accident, which would have occurred had the plaintiff been in normal health, but the damage sustained is greater because of aggravation of the earlier injury, the additional damage resulting from the aggravated injury should be treated as caused by the defendant’s negligence; and
(3)     where the further injury results from a subsequent accident which would have occurred had the plaintiff been in normal health and the damage sustained includes no element of aggravation of the earlier injury, the subsequent and further injury should be regarded as causally independent of the first.”
Although the decisions in both Oakley and Ozcan are binding, they strictly deal with notions of causation as they relate to common law negligence and, in the case of Ozcan, claims for permanent impairment compensation. As Mr Morgan noted in his submissions, the test to satisfy the requirements of s 60 of the 1987 Act is different. It is only necessary that the requirement for medical treatment be brought about “as a result of” an injury. That is, the injury need not be the only cause of the requirement for a treatment.
In this matter, there is a divergence of medical opinion as to the cause of the requirement for surgery. The treating specialist in this matter, Dr Donnellan is of the view there is an attributability of 50% between each of the respondents. Dr Donnellan bases the first respondent’s contribution on the development of adjacent segment disease after the first surgery, however, he also accepts the frank incident in 2020 was also a factor.
Radiological evidence taken after the 2011 injury reveals the presence of C6/7 pathology on MRI. However, there is also no doubt the applicant had returned to work, albeit she needed to be careful and from time to time had some symptoms after the first injury. It was after the second incident in 2020 that the applicant’s symptoms became much worse.
I have no difficulty in accepting the applicant’s ongoing complaints to all of her doctors are reasonable and genuine. There is no contention to the contrary by either respondent. I do not accept the first respondent’s submission that the effects of the first injury in 2011 had passed by the time of the second incident in 2020.
The applicant was assessed as suffering a 23% whole person impairment as a result of the first injury. By any measure, that is a serious degree of impairment and in circumstances where a work-related injury brings about the requirement for fusion surgery, it cannot realistically be said the effects of that injury had passed while the hardware in the applicant’s neck is still present.
The IME evidence in this matter is, understandably, divergent. Dr Dan, IME for the applicant provided a report dated 3 August 2022. He stated he believed the current need for surgery was as a result of the injury in April 2020. Dr Robinson for the second respondent provided a report dated 25 May 2022. Dr Robinson was of the view that any aggravation was not related to the 2020 incident, but rather down to the adjacent segment disorder.
Dr Dan, IME for the applicant provided a report dated 3 August 2022. As noted, he attributed the need for the proposed surgery to the 2020 incident, primarily because the applicant had a good recovery post-surgery in 2012 and because of the development of the C6/7 disc prolapse observed on MRI after the 2020 incident. However, Dr Dan made no comment at all as to adjacent segment disease, a factor which the treating surgeon Dr Donnellan and the other IMEs all state is a relevant consideration to the applicant’s current neck condition.
For the respondents, Dr Bentivoglio and Dr Sheehy each provided reports. Dr Bentivoglio attributed the 2020 incident as the cause of the applicant’s ongoing problems, while Dr Sheehy initially stated the attributability was 50-50, but in a later report indicated that the first respondent’s contribution was only 10%. The reason for Dr Sheehy’s change in position was what he described as the applicant’s good recovery from the first surgery.
Dr Bentivoglio opined the applicant’s neck symptoms relate solely to the adjacent segment disease brought about as a result of the surgery undertaken after the 2011 injury. He did not ascribe any of her neck symptoms to the 2020 injury, despite the applicant having returned to work for many years after her initial surgery. Dr Bentivoglio also failed, in my view, to meaningfully take into account the mechanism of the second injurious event and the applicant’s development of neck symptoms afterwards.
Dr Sheehy also provided an opinion. As with the other doctors in this matter, Dr Sheehy had a correct history of injury. He provided the following summary of the medical history in his first report dated 2 November 2022:
“She sustained a disruption of the C5/6 disc following a lifting injury undertaken in 2011 managed with a C5/6 anterior cervical fusion with a good outcome and there was relief of both neck and arm symptoms and after a year she returned to work. There was a further injury occurring on 21 April 2020. As a fusion had been established at C5/6 she was predisposed to the development of a disc disruption at C6/7, however, there was a specific event occurring during the course of her employment with EG Fuels on 21 April 2020 in which she developed pain in the arm and forearm which progressed to involve the ulnar three fingers and more latterly the radial three fingers of the left hand with the development of weakness affecting the hand for fine tasks. She has had a transposition of the left ulnar nerve.”
Dr Sheehy was specifically asked whether the 2020 incident was a new injury and whether the applicant’s employment with the second respondent was a substantial contributing factor to the neck issues. He replied “… she was predisposed to the disc disruption, but she has sustained a new injury to the cervical spine while employed with EG Fuel with a disc disruption of the C6/7 disc”. When asked whether both injuries may have brought about the requirement for surgery, Dr Sheehy replied:
“She recovered well following the C5/6 surgery in 2012. However, because of that surgery there was a predisposition to the development of a C6/7 disc disruption as this is a well-known complication of anterior cervical fusion.
However, there was a specific event upon which she developed those symptoms and I would apportion 50% of the responsibility to the requirement for a C6/7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion to the original injury and 50% to the more recent injury with EG Fuels.”

Curiously, later in the same report, Dr Sheehy stated the first injury was only 10% responsible for the need for surgery, and the second 90%. Dr Sheehy was asked to clarify his opinion and did so in a report dated 22 February 2023. In that report, Dr Sheehy maintained the apportionment should be 10% to the first respondent and 90% to the second. When asked why, Dr Sheehy said:
“The fusion at C5/6 did predispose to the development of a disc disruption at C6/7, however, there was a specific event upon which she recovered from those symptoms and while I initially considered that the injury should be split 50/50 between the two injuries, on reflection, as she recovered so well following the original injury, I would attribute responsibility for the second operation to 90% to the second injury and 10% to the initial injury.”
On balance, I am persuaded by the views of Dr Donnellan, treating surgeon. Dr Donnellan has had the benefit of treating the applicant over the course of more than a decade. He is very familiar with the pathology in the applicant’s cervical spine and the causes related to it. In a short report to the applicant’s general practitioner dated 3 March 2021, Dr Donnellan noted the second injury at work and confirmed the applicant suffered a C6/7 disc prolapse.
In a detailed report to the applicant’s solicitors dated 29 July 2022, Dr Donnellan provided a substantive history of both accidents. Concerning the second incident on 21 April 2020, he said:
“… she was working at [the second respondent] when she was stacking a bunch of milk crates. Each crate weighed approximately 18 kg because it had nine 2L containers of milk. When she was stretching to move one of the crates, she hyperextended her left elbow. She immediately felt sharp pain in the left elbow and this radiated into her posterior arm. She wore a splint and saw a physio to help with her pain. She subsequently sought medical treatment from Dr Gupta orthopaedic surgeon and myself regarding this arm pain. Three months after the elbow injury, she also started to get pain in her neck. Shortly after the incident on 21 April 2020, she developed pain and pins and needles in both her thumb, index finger as well as her fourth and ring finger. When she saw me on that date she had x-rays and ultrasounds of her elbows but had not had any imaging of her neck. The MRI of her elbow showed evidence of ulnar nerve entrapment.
After I reviewed the MRI and CT of her cervical spine, it revealed she had significant adjacent level disease in the C6/7 disc. I treated her with a left C6/7 transforaminal steroid injection by an interventional radiologist. This gave good short- to medium-term relief of some of her arm symptoms. I concluded that she had a double crush phenomenon. I recommended a nerve conduction study as well. My plan was that she needed treatment both to her left elbow and neck. Therefore, she needed to have her ulnar nerve decompression as well as a C6/7 ACDF.”
When asked about the cause of the applicant’s ongoing incapacity and requirement for surgery, Dr Donnellan said:
“As stated, she had what I and Dr Gupta diagnosed as a left C7 nerve root impingement and a left ulnar nerve injury. There is a clear relationship between the accident and the hyperextension injury to her left elbow and the ulnar nerve injury. The relationship between her neck injury and the incident is slightly more complex. She is at risk of developing adjacent level disease at the C6/7 because of the previous fusion at C5/.6. This was also the result of a compensable injury she suffered while working for Woolworths. The working diagnosis was that the injury itself plus the associated dysfunction in her left arm contributed significantly to impingement of the left C7 nerve root at the C6/7 disc. That is, she has a double crush phenomenon where she concurrently has an ulnar nerve impingement as well as a left C7 nerve root impingement. The ulnar nerve is entirely secondary to that incident on 21 April 2020 and the neck injury is a combination of the previous injury and the injury on 21 April 2020…
It is my opinion that the current need for cervical surgery is a combination of both injuries. I would estimate that it is a combination of adjacent level disease from the previous injury and then an exacerbation from the injury on 21 April 2020. I estimate that the contribution would be 50% between each of those incidents.”
It is noteworthy that Dr Donnellan also ascribed the applicant’s incapacity for employment to the same causes as those which led to the requirement for surgery.
As a treating surgeon, in my view, Dr Donnellan’s opinion carries significant weight unless it can be shown that there is a clear and demonstrable error in either his reasoning or the history taken by him. In my view, no such error is demonstrated and on balance, I am persuaded by his opinion that the requirement for the surgery proposed by him is brought about equally by the two injuries.
Whilst Mr Rickard noted, and I accept, that the earlier MRI scan after the 2011 injury showed the presence of a C6/7 protrusion, there can be no question that the applicant’s symptoms became much worse after the 2020 incident with the second respondent, and investigations taken after the 2020 incident revealed the presence of a C6/7 prolapse rather than the previously diagnosed protrusion. Such a change constitutes in my view a “sudden or identifiable pathological change” sufficient to constitute an injury pursuant to s 4 of the 1987 Act having been brought about by the 2020 injury: see Castro v State Transit Authority (NSW) [2000] NSWCC 12.
Whilst the need for surgery is brought about at least in part by adjacent segment disease, treating surgeon Dr Donnellan makes it clear there is pathological change caused by the second injury in the nature of the disc protrusion, which also necessitates the operation being undertaken.
In my view, the contemporaneous evidence and the views of Dr Donnellan as treating surgeon are persuasive, and I accept the requirement for surgery is equally brought about by the two injuries. Accordingly, the respondents will each be ordered to pay 50% of the costs of and incidental to the applicant’s proposed surgery together with her ongoing medical and treatment expenses generally.

The cause of the applicant’s incapacity for employment

I am also persuaded by Dr Donnellan’s views that the applicant’s incapacity is attributable on a 50-50 basis between the two respondents. Whilst the applicant returned to work after the first injury, it is apparent from her statement evidence, which I accept, that she still had some ongoing symptoms from time to time, and plainly had to adapt the manner in which she worked as a result of the first injury. Although it was not until after the second injury that the applicant began to suffer ongoing incapacity, as Dr Donnellan noted her ongoing issues are equally attributable to the adjacent segment disease caused by the fusion surgery which was necessary as a result of the first injury and the frank incident in 2020 with the second respondent.
There is no issue as to the applicant’s PIAWE, they are as pleaded in the Application. Likewise, the extent of her incapacity as pleaded from time to time has not been the subject of challenge from the respondents.
Accordingly, the applicant’s ongoing incapacity is as follows:
(a) Pursuant to s 36 of the 1987 Act at the following rates:
(i)from 19 September 2022 to 25 September 2022 at $427 per week;
(ii)from 26 September 2022 to 2 October 2022 at $598;
(iii)from 3 October 2022 to 9 October 2022 – $852;
(iv)from 10 October 2022 to 16 October 2022 – $689;
(v)from 17 October 2022 to 23 October 2022 – $812;
(vi)from 24 October 2022 to 30 October 2022 – $593;
(vii)from 31 October 2022 to 6 November 2022 – $377;
(viii)from 7 November 2022 to 13 November 2022 – $577;
(ix)from 14 November 2022 to 20 November 2022 – $542;
(x)from 21 November 2022 to 27 November 2022 – $906;
(xi)from 28 November 2022 to 4 December 2022 – $1,100;
(xii)from 5 December 2022 to 11 December 2022 – $506, and
(xiii)from 12 December 2022 to 18 December 2022 – $602.
(b) Pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act at the following rates:
(i)from 19 December 2022 to 25 December 2022 – $954;
(ii)from 26 December 2022 to 1 January 2023 – $478;
(iii)from 2 January 2023 to 8 January 2023 – $469;
(iv)from 9 January 2023 to 15 January 2023 – $1,100;
(v)from 16 January 2023 to 21 January 2023 – $631;
(vi)from 23 January 2023 to 29 January 2023 – $583;
(vii)from 30 January 2023 to 5 February 2023 – $871;
(viii)from 6 February 2023 to 12 February 2023 – $551, and
(ix)from 13 February 2023 to date and continuing at $1,100 per week.
Given my findings in relation to liability and apportionment, the respondents will be ordered to each pay 50% of the above weekly compensation.

SUMMARY

For the above reasons, the Commission will make the findings and orders set out on page 1 of the Certificate of Determination.

[2023] NSWPIC 299

26 June 2023