Dyson v Bowen & Pomeroy Pty Ltd
[2012] VCC 462
•19 April 2012
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised (Not) Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
DAMAGES & COMPENSATION LIST
SERIOUS INJURY DIVISION
Case No. CI-11-00736
| DANIEL JAMES DYSON | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| BOWEN & POMEROY PTY LTD | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | His Honour Judge Anderson | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 17 April 2012 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 19 April 2012 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Dyson v. Bowen & Pomeroy Pty Ltd | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 462 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
Catchwords: Accident compensation – Serious injury – Plaintiff injured his lower back at age 21 – “Constitutional low back vulnerability” due to his heavy frame and excess weight – Pain interfered significantly with the plaintiff’s sleep – Whether plaintiff’s impairment to be regarded as “very considerable” – Section 134AB Accident Compensation Act 1985.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr J.A. Jordan SC and Ms R. Jordan | Shine Lawyers |
| For the Defendant | Mr C.A. Miles | Wisewould Mahony |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Daniel Dyson had an accident at work on 10 January 2005. He was employed as a yard person by the defendant. He was then aged 21, having been born on 20 December 1983. He had worked with the defendant since October 2003. The plaintiff said that he had been suffering niggling pains in his back for some months.
2 On 10 January, he was lifting a light piece of wood whilst clearing the yard. He felt a sudden sharp pain in the lower back. He stopped working and attended his general practitioner, suffering thoracic and lumbar spine pain. The injury was investigated and treated conservatively. The plaintiff had time off work and later returned to lighter duties involving sales and clerical work. The plaintiff has not returned to physical work but has been generally able to maintain consistent employment.
3 He no longer seeks leave to issue proceedings for damages for loss of earning capacity. The present application pursuant to s.134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 is limited to pain and suffering damages in respect of the injury to the plaintiff's lower back. There is no issue that the plaintiff will have permanent limitations because of his injury which will affect his ability to participate in certain physical activities including as part of his employment.
4 There are two issues for determination in the application, firstly whether the injury arose from the plaintiff's employment with the defendant. The second issue for determination is whether the plaintiff's impairment can be regarded as a "serious injury”.
5 This will involve an examination of the following matters:
a. The nature and extent of the injury the plaintiff suffered;
b. The symptoms the plaintiff experienced following the incident;
c. The effect of the injury upon the plaintiff's capacity to perform the normal activities of daily living;
d. Whether the injury was reflected in the radiological or clinical examinations;
e. The treatment received by the plaintiff;
f. A comparison of the pain and suffering consequences to the plaintiff with other cases in the range of possible impairments or losses of a body function.
Causation
6 The defendant relies upon two affidavits sworn by Brett Rogers on 14 February 2011 and Jamie Graham sworn 17 February 2011. Mr Rogers was the branch manager of the store where the plaintiff was working in January 2005. He stated he recalled that, "On or about Friday 7 January 2005 the applicant asked me if he could leave 20 minutes earlier to help a friend move heavy items. I allowed him to leave 20 minutes earlier”. On the following Monday, "after being at work only a short time he came to me and told me that his back was sore... at this stage he did not say anything about injuring his back whilst lifting a piece of wood”. When the plaintiff returned to work on 17 January 2005, "He told me that he had injured his back on Monday 10 January picking up a bearer”.
7 Mr Graham was employed as a yardman by the defendant in January 2005. He stated that, "On about 10 January 2005 I recall that shortly after work had commenced the applicant told me that he had woken up with a sore back", and at no stage that day, did the plaintiff "mention to me that he had injured his back whilst lifting wood”.
8 Both Mr Rogers and Mr Graham stated that after complaining of a sore back on 10 January, the plaintiff telephone his mother "to arrange a physiotherapy appointment”. In his evidence, the plaintiff agreed that he had asked to leave early on the Friday but that this was to attend a social function. In an answering affidavit the plaintiff stated, "I did not lift any furniture for a friend during the period 7 to 10 January 2005 and I cannot explain where Brett has got that version of events from. During that weekend I was at a computer workshop in Collingwood”.
9 The plaintiff went to the Long Beach Medical Centre on 10 January 2005 where he presented "with thoracic and lumbar spine pain noted in the course of his work that day at a timber and hardware store”. The plaintiff saw a physiotherapist on 11 January 2005. In the clinical notes the physiotherapist recorded, so far as can be interpreted, "One day ago bent over to pick up light object, locked up, a lot of pain, then eased, then pain increased again. Prior [to the incident] niggly for months”.
10 On 13 January 2005, the plaintiff completed an incident report form for his employer recording that "between 8.00-8.10" he was "bending down to pick up a piece of timber and got a sudden pain in my lower back”. In a WorkCover worker's claim form completed on 25 January 2005, the plaintiff recorded similar details of the incident and the fact that he had reported his "injury/condition" to the manager Brett Rogers on 10 January 2005 at 8.30 a.m.
11 The plaintiff was referred to a neurosurgeon, Mr John McMahon, on 1 March 2005. On 21 March 2005, he was medically examined on behalf of the WorkCover insurer by consultant surgeon Mr Peter Scott. To these doctors and to all other physicians who later saw him, the plaintiff gave a consistent account of the onset of his back pain whilst at work.
12 For the purposes of the present application I consider that I should proceed on the basis that the plaintiff first experienced lower back symptoms at work. These consisted of "niggling" pain for some months late in 2004 and a sharp sudden onset of pain shortly after he commenced work on 10 January 2005 which caused him to immediately leave work and seek medical treatment.
13 The matters which persuade me that this is the appropriate course are as follows:
a. The affidavits relied upon by the defendant were sworn in February 2011. It is not clear when instructions were given upon which the affidavits were based;
b. The contemporaneous documents all support the plaintiff's version of how the injury manifested itself. The alternative scenario was never put to any of the examining doctors including the six doctors instructed by the worker's compensation insurer or the defendant;
c. The plaintiff denies the critical part of the conversations alleged and gives a quite different account of his reason for leaving early on the Friday afternoon;
d. The plaintiff's "straightforwardness" was commented upon by examining doctors. There was nothing in the evidence which would cast doubt upon his credibility.
Circumstances relating to the injury
14 The plaintiff left school halfway through Year 12. He worked in a video store and then from October 2003 for the defendant as a yard person. A job description is in evidence and sets out the significant "physical demands" of the position including "carrying unstable and unbalanced loads that weigh between 20-40 kg" and "bending and twisting while holding/carrying items" weighing up to 40 kg.
15 The radiological investigations following the plaintiff's injury showed:
8 February 2005, CT lumbar spine - "Minor annular bulge at the L5-S1 disc level”.
April 2005, MRI lumbosacral spine - "Annular tear at the L5-S1 level posteriorly with a mild disc bulge present here. There is no spinal canal stenosis or neural foraminal narrowing. No significant facet joint degenerative changes identified”.
February 2006, CT lumbar spine - "Small broad-based central disc protrusion at L5-S1”.
3 October 2010, CT lumbar spine - "Mild narrowing of the lumbosacral disc with a small Schmorl's node involving the lower vertebral end plate of L5 with a small generalised posterior disc bulge at the L5-S1 level. No significant impingement upon the neural foramina”.
3 April 2012, CT lumbar spine - "There are minor disc protrusions at the L1-2, L2-3, L3-4 and L4-5 levels which flatten the theca. There is no central or foraminal stenosis. L5-S1: there is a broad-based disc protrusion which slightly indents the theca. No central nor foraminal stenosis. Posterior facet joints are normal”.
16 The treatment received by the plaintiff has been as follows:
a. Attendance at general practitioners at regular intervals from January 2005. Their reports describe flare-ups and persisting symptoms. The plaintiff attended the Long Beach Medical Centre at Chelsea Heights between 10 January 2005 and 2 September 2011, the Casey Medical Centre at Cranbourne from 23 September 2009 to 14 April 2010 and the Wells Road Medical Centre Chelsea Heights since 14 February 2012.
b. The plaintiff was referred to neurosurgeon Mr John McMahon, whom he saw on 28 February 2005 and 11 April 2005. The plaintiff also saw pain management specialist Dr Bruce Mitchell in early 2005. He attended Lakeview Physiotherapy Clinic at Patterson Lakes from 11 January 2005 until 18 April 2005, and the Spinal Management Clinic at Frankston for physiotherapy from 25 May to 12 December 2005.
c. The plaintiff was prescribed anti-inflammatory medication on 10 January 2005 and soon afterwards painkillers, antidepressants and other medication including Panadeine Forte, Capadex, Tramal, Lyritza, Panadol Osteo, Nurofen, Di-Gesic, Lexapro and Duromine. The plaintiff is currently prescribed Tramal SR 50, 50 mg slow release tablets, one before bed to help him sleep, Panadol Osteo (2 prn) and Capadex (two hourly prn).
d. Mr McMahon said in August 2010 that, "There is no plan for any surgical intervention but should his back pain become more chronic then he may need to consider lumbar surgery such as disc replacement surgery or lumbar fusions”. Mr McMahon also noted that the plaintiff "requires ongoing pain management" and "various treatments may include medical branch blocks and radio frequency denervation to the facet joints or alternatively lumbar discography to the intervertebral disc degeneration at L5-S1”.
e. The plaintiff has, so far as he has been able to, undertaken all treatments advised. Dr Mitchell recommended pain relieving injections in the lumbar spine region. The WorkCover insurer did not authorise this treatment. The plaintiff's general practitioner also recommended a pain management program. Notwithstanding recent support for this proposal from neurosurgeon Mr Kevin Siu, whom the plaintiff saw at the request of the defendant's solicitors, WorkCover did not authorise the plaintiff's attendance at such a program. The plaintiff has also undertaken Pilates and hydrotherapy.
f. The plaintiff was overweight at the time of the injury. He was weighed at 118 kg on 22 March 2005. Later recorded weighings include 120 kg on 15 February 2007, 140 kg on 20 January 2011, 153 kg on 14 February 2012 and 150 kg on 26 March 2012. The plaintiff has attempted to address this issue with medication, dieting and exercise. Mr Kevin King, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon who saw the plaintiff in January 2011 at the request of his solicitors, gave oral evidence before me. He said that the plaintiff's body structure made him susceptible to obesity and it was unrealistic to expect the plaintiff in his present position to control or significantly reduce his weight.
g. In a recent affidavit sworn 22 March 2012 the plaintiff stated, "I continue to suffer from constant pain in my lower back. The pain is always there to some extent but it goes up and down as to how severe it is. My back pain can become more severe with activity or with changes in the weather. My pain can also spike out of the blue without any apparent cause. At times my back pain is so bad that I have to lie flat on my back for several hours. In addition to my back pain I also suffer from occasional shooting pains down my right leg. These pains run from my hip area to my knee. My back movements are restricted and I try to avoid bending and twisting motions. I can no longer sit or stand for long periods of time and I have to alternate between sitting and standing”.
h. The plaintiff's pain has affected his ability to participate in physical activity in both his employment and in his domestic and leisure pursuits. He says that he finds "that my back pain usually flares up when I perform physically demanding activities”. This includes driving a motor vehicle. He has difficulty performing household tasks including cleaning and tidying, although he mows the lawn. Before the injury he competed each week in ten pin bowling. He was a Boy Scout when young and enjoyed hiking and camping. Before the injury he would perform these activities regularly.
i. The plaintiff will be married in June 2012. His fiancée is a teacher and qualified geologist whom he has known for seven years. Their intimate relations are affected by his back problems. Their recreational pursuits, including hiking and camping, are also restricted.
j. The plaintiff's sleep has been severely compromised, notwithstanding the medication he takes. He regularly wakes during the night and has difficulty getting back to sleep. He averages four to six hours of sleep each night and his mood when awake is affected.
k. The plaintiff's pain has caused him to be depressed, although in recent times he has managed without antidepressant medication.
l. The plaintiff's mother, Sharon Dyson, swore an affidavit on 7 April 2012 in which she said: "Daniel's back injury has had a huge effect upon Daniel... after his back injury he would regularly complain of back pain. I would often see him grimacing in pain. His movements seemed restricted. He became very quiet and would not go out much... Daniel underwent large amounts of medical treatment for his back pain and he was trialled on an awful lot of medication which did strange things to him. At times Daniel could not even drive because the medication would make him drowsy. Daniel is a different person to what he was. He has really changed. He is more quiet and depressed. He is also extremely upset with his weight gain and he can't exercise because it puts him backwards”.
m. Following his injury the plaintiff's employment history was at follows:
i. With the defendant:
10 January 2005 injured, off work five days, returning 17 January 2005. Certified fit for only modified duties with no lifting over 10 kg.
17 February 2005 - 9 May 2005, off work, unfit for any duties.
10 May 2005, returned to work on reduced hours in sales with no lifting or carrying duties.
End of June 2005, working full-time in sales.
11 May 2007, resigned his employment.
ii.With Bellbird Building Supplies.
May 2007 to July-August 2010, performing office work.
iii.With Mitre 10
From August 2010 employed as a sales assistant.
10 February 2012, dismissed for "misconduct", it being alleged the plaintiff "defrauded the company by lying about the hours you worked and your time keeping”.
iv.With Serano Timber:
From 2 April 2012, full-time employment in a sales/clerical role.
n. Since the plaintiff returned to work in May 2005, he has been unable to attend work for scattered days totalling about three months in all over six years as a consequence of flare-ups of back pain.
Medical evidence
17 In addition to the treating doctors, the plaintiff has been examined by the following medico-legal examiners:
a. On 8 November 2010, by Dr Albert Kaplan, a consultant psychiatrist, at the request of his solicitors.
b. In January 2011, by Mr King, at the request of his solicitors.
c. On 22 March 2012, by Mr Russell Miller, an orthopaedic surgeon, at the request of his solicitors.
d. On 21 March 2005, by Mr Peter Scott, consultant surgeon, at the request of the WorkCover insurer.
e. On 2 May 2005 and 28 March 2006, by Dr Maurice Wallin, a consultant in occupational health, safety, rehabilitation and legal medicine, at the request of the insurer.
f. On 15 February 2007, by Dr Michael Baynes, an occupational physician, at the request of the insurer.
g. On 15 June 2009, by Mr Peter Battlay, a consultant surgeon at the request of the insurer.
h. On 20 January 2011 and 1 March 2012, by Mr Michael Dooley, an orthopaedic surgeon, at the request of the defendant's solicitors.
i. On 21 March 2012, by Mr Siu, a neurosurgeon, at the request of the defendant's solicitors.
18 There is very little debate on the medical evidence about certain critical matters. In listing these matters, I will generally paraphrase statements from the reports of Mr Dooley.
a. The lifting at work aggravated the plaintiff's naturally occurring underlying degenerative condition of his low lumbar spine. The incident was "mild" or "minor".
b. The plaintiff sustained "an organic injury that would account for a significant proportion of his ongoing pain”.
c. The injury would affect the plaintiff’s ability to carry out regular heavy physical work or engage in active impact leisure pursuits.
d. The plaintiff is not fit for his former employment as a yard person but is capable of continuing his current employment involving light physical work and clerical and sales duties.
19 There is a degree of controversy in the medico legal reports about "the constancy and intensity of [the plaintiff's] ongoing pain and his described disability and greater than one would expect to see for either the soft tissues injuries sustained or for the degree of underlying degeneration at the lumbosacral level” (Mr Dooley)
20 Mr Dooley also noted "some inconsistent signs in relation to straight leg raising", the absence of "evidence of objective neurological deficit affecting the lower limbs" upon clinical examination and that "radiologically there is no evidence of nerve root entrapment”. Nevertheless, Mr Dooley considered that the plaintiff's "organic injury" would result in him having "difficulty carrying out heavy physical work or work that involved a lot of bending and lifting [and] with active impact leisure pursuits”.
21 Mr Siu considered that the plaintiff's "symptom of persistent pain is unusual" and should have settled within two years. He thought "there is some functional overlay with symptoms of pain down the right leg" which was the reverse of what Mr Siu would have expected. He stated that the "degenerative changes documented at such a young age" should have required treatment at a spinal rehabilitation centre.
22 Generally, the examining doctors report positively about the plaintiff's attitude to his injury. Whilst noting his depression, they comment upon his attitude reflected in his determination to remain in suitable employment. Dr Wallin described the plaintiff as "a quite credible person without any sign of abnormal illness behaviour, psychological negativity or the like [and as a person] whose attitude to his work and his disability was excellent”.
23 The plaintiff's examining doctor's also made positive comments as to his presentation. Mr King described him as "sensible, straightforward and well motivated”. Dr Kaplan attributed the plaintiff's depressed state to his physical condition and said that, "He is likely to remain prone to depression and anxiety as long as his pain persists, as long as he remains disabled by that pain and as long as he is unable to resume his normal active lifestyle”.
24 The second issue of some controversy is the effect of the plaintiff's weight and the likely improvement in his condition if he were able to lose weight. In March 2006, Dr Wallin expressed the view that because of "his heavy lifetime weight" the plaintiff had a "constitutional low back vulnerability" and probably "would have to have been considered constitutionally unfit for yardman duties”. Apart from these factors, he thought that "on balance" the plaintiff's incapacity would "resolve within about six months maximum”.
25 Mr Dooley considered that the plaintiff "would benefit from an improvement in his fitness and stamina”. He noted that the plaintiff "is significantly overweight and while obesity in its own right does not cause degenerative disc disease, it is my clinical observation that patients who are significantly overweight and/or physiologically unfit are more likely to sustain soft tissue injuries to the lumbar spine during the course of their work”.
26 Mr Siu noted that it was the plaintiff's "excessive weight gain which poses significant stress to the already degenerative lumbar discs" and that it was "very common to see people eat excessively to cope with their depression”.
Relevant Legal Principles
27 There are a number of recent statements by the Court of Appeal which have relevance to the present application:
a. As to where the pain and suffering consequences to the plaintiff sit with other cases in the range of possible impairments or losses of a body function;
i. In Sabo v. George Weston Foods [2009] VSCA 242 at paragraphs 73 and 74, the Court said, "In considering whether Mr Sabo's impairment is 'at least very considerable', weight must be given to the adverb 'very'. As Callaway JA said in TAC v Dennis [1998] 1 VR 702: ‘Many [impairments] are considerable, in the sense that they are important or substantial, without being very considerable’ (at 703.) Section 134AB was intended to restrict the availability of common law damages to workers whose impairments were of ‘very considerable’ magnitude. [The plaintiff has] the onus of showing that the pain and suffering consequences of his injury have resulted in an impairment which is ‘fairly described as being more than significant or marked, and as being at the very least very considerable’”.
ii.In Stijepic v. One Force Group Aust Pty Ltd [2009] VSCA 181 at paragraph 44, the Court quoted from the judgment of Ashley JA in Dwyer v. Calco Timbers Pty Ltd (No.2) [2008] VSCA. 260, as follows, "It is to be remembered that in reaching a conclusion whether a worker has established that he (or she) suffered serious injury, 'the significance of what has been lost, which bears upon the seriousness of consequences, may be informed, to an extent, by what is retained'".
b. As to the general response by the plaintiff to his injury; Nettle JA in Dwyer v. Calco Timbers Pty Ltd (No.2), stated at paragraph 3, "I suspect that but for the way in which the Appellant has been prepared to put up with his pain and suffering and get on with his business as best he can, the Respondent may well not have disputed his claim. It is unnecessary for present purposes to reach a concluded view about that and I have not done so, but it would be unfortunate and in my view wrong-headed if in future such an Applicant were treated less favourably than another who being of less strength of character simply resigned himself to his injury”.
c. As to the relevance of interrupted sleep; in Haden Engineering Pty Ltd v. McKinnon [2010] VSCA 69, Maxwell P at paragraph 45 stated, "It is in my view a matter of great significance for a person to be denied, seemingly for the rest of his life, the ability to enjoy uninterrupted sleep. Mr McKinnon often experiences multiple painful awakenings in the course of a single night. As his counsel submitted, that is properly to be regarded as constituting a very considerable diminution in Mr McKinnon's enjoyment of life, to say nothing of the effect which sleep deprivation must have on his ability to enjoy the activities of daily life”.
Parties’ Submissions
28 Mr Miles on behalf of the defendant submitted that the following matters should lead the Court to conclude that the plaintiff's pain and suffering consequences of his injury have not resulted in an impairment which might fairly be described as being "very considerable":
a. Apart from the initial period of two or three months off work the plaintiff had only been unable to work as a result of flare ups or scattered days for a total of about three months over the next six years.
b. The plaintiff had received no specialist treatment for his injuries since 2005. The plaintiff has only occasionally attended general practitioners.
c. The plaintiff was no longer required to take medication for depression and had told Mr King in January 2011 in relation to medication that "he avoids analgesics if possible but takes Panadeine Forte tablets intermittently during flare ups”.
d. The plaintiff's life is generally improving. He will shortly marry. His earnings from employment have increased each year since the injury and the tasks he performs are satisfying to him and include computer work which he enjoys.
e. Although the plaintiff may have sleep difficulties, he apparently did not follow up a referral to a sleep specialist in January 2009.
f. The plaintiff undertakes lawn mowing and gardening.
g. The plaintiff's pathology is mild and the pain and suffering consequences were to be regarded as merely an inconvenience.
h. The plaintiff's "constitutional vulnerability" as a result of his weight problems contributed to his injury and inhibits his recovery.
29 Ms Jordan on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the following matters were largely uncontested and should led the Court to make a determination in the plaintiff's favour:
a. The plaintiff is in constant pain. He was injured at age 21 and over seven years have passed.
b. The plaintiff requires prescription medication for pain relief as required and to help him sleep every night. The plaintiff's sleep is significantly affected.
c. The plaintiff has gained 30 to 35 kilograms since his injury despite his efforts to control his weight. As a consequence of his injury he is less active both as a result of changing to a sedentary occupation and his domestic and recreational activities being restricted.
d. The plaintiff's social, domestic and recreational activities are now limited, particularly camping and hiking which he enjoyed and in respect of which his fiancée has a particular interest.
e. The effect on his intimate relations is a cause of frustration and disappointment.
f. The range of jobs open to the plaintiff will exclude those with any physical aspect.
Conclusions
30 In my view, the plaintiff's age when he was injured is a matter of considerable importance. He was 21 years old. He had left school a couple of years earlier and his adult life had just begun. It is difficult to anticipate how he would have spent the next 40 years if he had not been injured. He had a large frame and was carrying excess weight. He had, as Dr Wallin said, "constitutional vulnerability" and, as Mr Dooley stated, was "more likely to sustain soft tissue injuries to the lumbar spine”.
31 At the time he was injured, the plaintiff had been working in a physical demanding position for about 15 months. Although he had had some "niggles" in his back, he was apparently performing his job satisfactorily. His mother described him as "outgoing" and "a non-complainer around the house. Nothing seemed to worry him”. He was playing competition ten pin bowling each week. He had previously participated in baseball and football. He enjoyed hiking and camping with friends. He had no difficulty with intimate relations.
32 The last seven years provide a likely indication of what the plaintiff will face into the future. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has been a "straightforward" witness and historian. I am not prepared to make any adverse finding based upon correspondence written by Mitre 10 at the time it terminated the plaintiff's employment in circumstances where the plaintiff explained that the precipitating reason for his dismissal was likely to have been, absences due to his injury.
33 The plaintiff has endured seven years of pain, limited functioning of his back, physical restrictions severely affecting his employment options and a very wide range of social, domestic and recreational activities including intimate relations with his fiancée. He has used significant medication and still suffers serious disruption to his sleep.
34 The plaintiff has, despite these limitations and other setbacks including episodes of depression, been able to maintain a positive approach to his life. This should not lead to his application being "treated less favourably" than that of a less resilient person. It is perhaps more an indication of the possibilities that were open to the plaintiff in his adult life and therefore what he has lost as a result of the impairment to his lower back.
35 I accept that the pain the plaintiff suffers is as a consequence of the “organic” injury to his lower back and, as Mr King said, the radiological findings are significant because of the plaintiff’s relative young age. His recent weight gain is a consequence of that injury. I accept Mr King’s evidence that the plaintiff would have difficulty, in his circumstances following the injury, controlling his weight.
36 Accordingly, I am satisfied that the pain and suffering consequences make it appropriate to conclude that the plaintiff's impairment to the body function of his lower back might fairly be described as "very considerable".
Order
37 The plaintiff will have leave to bring an action limited to pain and suffering damages in respect of the impairment to the body function of his lower back arising out of the plaintiff's employment as a yard person with the defendant prior to 10 January 2005.
- - -
Certificate
I certify that these 17 pages are a true copy of the reasons for decision of His Honour Judge Anderson delivered on 19 April 2012 and revised on 20 April 2012.
Dated: 20 April 2012
Hannah Christensen
Associate to His Honour Judge Anderson
0
4
0