Foldi v TJ & RF Fordham Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 406

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Foldi v TJ & RF Fordham Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 406
APPLICANT:	Dean Foldi
RESPONDENT:	TJ & RF Fordham Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
DATE OF DECISION:	13 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether applicant suffered injury to the cervical spine; accepted injury to the left shoulder; multiple forensic medical reports filed by both parties; additional reports considered for purposes of history only; inconsistent histories given; no record of symptoms reported to treating general practitioner; Held – award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Award for the respondent. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Foldi was employed as a truck driver for the respondent. His shift involved transporting blue metal. To secure the load, he was required to place a tarpaulin over the material. This would be secured via a mechanical wheel. There was an electric motor to assist with putting the tarpaulin in place, but this had malfunctioned.
On 5 February 2020, Mr Foldi was securing the tarpaulin manually, due to the malfunctioning tool. The winch was stuck, so Mr Foldi used extra force to get it to shift. He continued to pull on the handle but noticed that he had dislocated his left shoulder. He continued his duties, working through the pain. He completed an incident report indicating an injury to the left shoulder.
The left shoulder became the primary concern of Mr Foldi, and he underwent two bouts of surgery to treat that condition. The left shoulder injury is not disputed. The present dispute concerns the cervical spine. Surgery has been recommended. Mr Foldi claims he injured that body part in the initial incident. The occurrence of that injury, as well as whether the proposed surgery is reasonably necessary, have been disputed by the respondent.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) Whether the applicant suffered an injury to his cervical spine on 5 February 2022, to which employment was a substantial contributing factor, and
(b) Whether surgery proposed, being C5/C6 foraminotomy and decompression of the C6 nerve root microdiscectomy is reasonable necessary as a result of injury.

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 matter proceeded to conciliation/arbitration on 31 July 2025. The applicant was represented by Mr Joseph of counsel, instructed by Turner Freeman Lawyers. The respondent was represented by Mr McEnaney of counsel, instructed by Bartier Perry.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents…

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 Foldi v TJ & RF Fordham Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Foldi v TJ & RF Fordham Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 406
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 406
Decision Date: 13 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Foldi brought a claim against TJ & RF Fordham Pty Ltd under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, asserting that she had suffered injury to her cervical spine in addition to an accepted injury to her left shoulder. Both parties filed multiple forensic medical reports, with additional reports considered for historical purposes only. The medical reports presented by both parties were inconsistent, and there was no record of the symptoms being reported to the treating general practitioner.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's claim of cervical spine injury was valid, given the conflicting medical evidence and the lack of contemporaneous records. The court had to assess the credibility of the applicant's evidence and the reliability of the medical reports, taking into account the inconsistencies and the absence of any record of symptoms reported to the treating general practitioner.

The court found that the applicant's claim of cervical spine injury was not substantiated by the evidence presented. The inconsistencies in the medical reports, coupled with the lack of any contemporaneous records of symptoms reported to the treating general practitioner, undermined the credibility of the applicant's evidence. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the respondent, TJ & RF Fordham Pty Ltd.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders