Elmasri v APEC Transport Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 472

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Elmasri v APEC Transport Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 472
APPLICANT:	Ibrahim Elmasri
RESPONDENT:	APEC Transport Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Catherine McDonald
DATE OF DECISION:	10 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for permanent impairment compensation for accepted psychological injury; employer argued worker also suffered secondary psychological injury; analysis of expert evidence; South Western Sydney Area Health Service v Edmonds, Grasa v Roads and Maritime Services, and Summers v Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Limited t/as Hutchison Ports; Held – worker suffered a primary psychological injury and did not also suffer a secondary psychological injury; matter remitted for referral to Medical Assessor.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. I find that the applicant suffered a primary psychological injury on 7 August 2019. 2. I remit the matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess the applicant’s permanent impairment: Body system: Psychological injury Date of injury: 7 August 2019 Method of assessment: Whole person impairment. 3. The documents to be sent to the Medical Assessor are: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents; (b) Reply; (c) APEC’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 7 August 2025, and (d) a copy of this certificate of determination. A statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ibrahim Elmasri suffered an injury on 7 August 2019 when he was struck by a steel beam suspended from a crane while employed by APEC Transport Pty Ltd (APEC). He suffered physical injuries and a primary psychological injury in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder.
The issue for determination is whether he also suffered a secondary psychological injury. For the reasons which follow, I am not satisfied that he did.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The matter was listed for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing on 15 August 2025 when Mr Hickey of counsel appeared for Mr Elmasri and Mr Stiles of counsel appeared for APEC.
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 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

The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:
(a)    Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents;
(b)    Reply, and
(c)    APEC’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 7 August 2025.
There was no oral evidence.
Mr Elmasri said in his statement dated 1 November 2023 that he suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of a motor accident in 2015. He said that he recovered from that injury.
Mr Elmasri said that he was…

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 Elmasri v APEC Transport 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 472
Decision Date: 10 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court was a workers' compensation claim brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Elmasri, against the defendant, APEC Transport Pty Ltd. Mr. Elmasri was seeking compensation for a permanent impairment resulting from a psychological injury he sustained during his employment with APEC Transport. The defendant argued that Mr. Elmasri had not only suffered a primary psychological injury but also a secondary psychological injury, which would impact the compensation he was entitled to receive.

The primary legal issues that the Court needed to decide were whether Mr. Elmasri had suffered a secondary psychological injury in addition to his primary psychological injury, and if so, how this would affect the assessment of his compensation claim. This required a detailed analysis of the expert evidence provided by both parties, as well as consideration of relevant precedents such as South Western Sydney Area Health Service v Edmonds, Grasa v Roads and Maritime Services, and Summers v Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Limited t/as Hutchison Ports.

After carefully examining the evidence and relevant case law, the Court determined that Mr. Elmasri had indeed suffered a primary psychological injury but did not suffer a secondary psychological injury. The Court held that the matter should be remitted for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the appropriate level of compensation for the primary psychological injury. The Court found that the defendant's arguments regarding a secondary psychological injury were not supported by the evidence and that the primary injury was sufficient to account for the extent of Mr. Elmasri's impairment.

In conclusion, the Court ruled that Mr. Elmasri was entitled to compensation for his primary psychological injury and directed that the matter be remitted for reassessment by a Medical Assessor to determine the appropriate quantum of compensation. This decision ensures that Mr. Elmasri receives the appropriate compensation for the injury he sustained during his employment.

Orders