Fabian v Poletech Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 141

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Fabian v Poletech Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 141
APPLICANT:	Eddie Fabian
RESPONDENT:	Poletech Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Michael Wright
DATE OF DECISION:	10 April 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; claim for lump sum compensation for undisputed left knee injury and disputed consequential conditions; credit submissions; New South Wales Police Force v Winter considered and applied; consequential conditions; Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, and Moon v Conmah Pty Limited considered and applied; common sense causation; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates applied; Held – claimed consequential conditions resulted from subject injury; referred for medical assessment.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. As a result of injury sustained to his left knee on 2 September 2020 in the course of employment with the respondent, the applicant has consequently sustained lumbar spine, right shoulder, left elbow, scarring and sleep disorder conditions. 2. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for assessment as follows: Date of injury: 2 September 2020 – Personal Injury. Body systems/parts: left lower extremity (knee); left upper extremity (elbow); right upper extremity (shoulder); lumbar spine; TEMSKI/scarring, and respiratory system (sleep disorder). Method: whole person impairment. 3. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, and (b) Reply and attached documents, excluding all reports of Dr Hale and Dr Harrington. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Eddie Fabian, sustained injury to his left knee on 2 September 2020 in the course of his employment with the respondent, Poletech Pty Ltd.
The applicant claimed lump sum compensation for the left lower extremity (knee) and consequential lumbar spine, right shoulder, left elbow, scarring and sleep disorder conditions.
Injury to the left knee was not disputed. The respondent disputed the claim for consequential back, right shoulder, left elbow and sleep disorder conditions.

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.
At the hearing of this matter on 20 February 2025, the applicant was represented by
Mr Hickey of counsel, and Mr Glavan, solicitor, and the respondent by Mr Grimes, of counsel, and Mr Murray, solicitor.

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 and attached documents, and
(b) Reply…

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 Fabian v Poletech Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Fabian v Poletech Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 141
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 141
Decision Date: 10 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Fabian v Poletech Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the claimant, Fabian, and the respondent, Poletech Pty Ltd, concerning a claim for lump sum compensation related to a left knee injury and consequential conditions. The case was heard and determined by the relevant authority, which is not explicitly stated in the text. The primary issue was whether the consequential conditions claimed by Fabian were a result of the undisputed left knee injury. This involved a consideration of the relevant legal principles and authorities under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.

The court was required to decide if the consequential conditions claimed by Fabian were indeed caused by the undisputed injury. This required an examination of the legal standards for establishing causation in workers' compensation claims, particularly in relation to common sense causation. The court considered the principles established in Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd and Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, which provide guidance on determining consequential conditions and causation in such cases. Additionally, the case of New South Wales Police Force v Winter was relevant in assessing credit submissions and the overall validity of the claims.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principles of common sense causation as elucidated in Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates. The court found that the consequential conditions claimed by Fabian were indeed a result of the subject injury. This conclusion was reached after considering the evidence and the applicable legal standards. Consequently, the court referred the matter for medical assessment to further evaluate the extent of the consequential conditions. The final orders of the court were to refer the matter for medical assessment, reflecting the determination that the consequential conditions were a result of the undisputed injury.

Orders