Ghorbanali v S Pars & B Pars - [2021] NSWPIC 52

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Ghorbanali v S Pars & B Pars [2021] NSWPIC 52
APPLICANT:	Esmail Ghorbanali
RESPONDENT:	S Pars & B Pars
MEMBER:	Jacqueline Snell
DATE OF DECISION:	29 March 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Claim for weekly benefits and medical and related treatment expenses resulting from multiple injuries sustained on 24 March 2018; the respondent placed injury in issue (save for injury to the cervical spine), and incapacity and treatment in issue; Held– the applicant sustained injury to his head (in the nature of a contusion), cervical spine, right shoulder on 24 March 2018 during the course of his employment with the respondent, with the applicant’s employment with the respondent being a substantial contributing factor to injury; as a consequence of these injuries the applicant’s pre-existing psychological injury deteriorated; the applicant had no current capacity for work since 24 March 2018 and the respondent is to make payments of weekly compensation under sections 36 and 47 of the 1987 Act accordingly; the applicant’s PIAWE is to be adjusted in accordance with section 82A of the 1987 Act; the respondent is to receive credit for payments made during the period of the applicant’s entitlement to weekly compensation; the applicant required medical treatment and services as a consequence of the injuries he sustained and the respondent is to pay the applicant’s medical and related treatment in accordance with sections 59 and 60 of the 1987 Act.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant sustained injury to his head (in the nature of a contusion) in the course of his employment with the respondent, with the date of injury of 24 May 2018. The applicant’s employment with the respondent was a substantial contributing factor to injury. 2. As a consequence of the injury the applicant has sustained to his cervical spine, right shoulder and head (in the nature of a contusion) in the course of his employment with the respondent, the applicant’s pre-existing psychological injury has deteriorated. 3. Award for the respondent relevant to alleged injury the applicant sustained injury to his thoracic spine, his lumbar spine, his left shoulder, his left hand and his right hand. 4. The applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings are agreed at $1,530. The applicant has had no current work capacity since on or about 24 May 2018 due to the injuries he has sustained. The applicant has an entitlement to weekly benefits payable under ss 36 and 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The respondent is to make payments of weekly compensation to the applicant in accordance with s 36(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 from 24 May 2018 to 23 August 2018 at the rate of $1,453.50. The respondent is to make payments of weekly compensation in accordance with s 37(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 from 24 August 2018 to 24 November 2020 at the rate of $1,224. The applicant’s PIAWE is to be adjusted in accordance with s 82A of the 1987 Act. The respondent is to receive credit…

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 Ghorbanali v S Pars & B Pars 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: [2021] NSWPIC 52
Decision Date: 29 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ghorbanali v S Pars & B Pars involved a claim for workers' compensation benefits and medical expenses arising from injuries sustained by the applicant on 24 March 2018. The applicant alleged multiple injuries including to his head, cervical spine, and right shoulder, which he claimed were sustained during the course of his employment with the respondents. The respondents contested the claim, specifically denying that the applicant had sustained injuries to his head and right shoulder and disputing the incapacity and treatment costs claimed. The matter was heard in the Workers Compensation Regulator of the Northern Territory.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the applicant had sustained the injuries claimed and if so, whether these injuries were caused by the employment and if they contributed to the applicant's incapacity and medical expenses. The court also needed to determine the extent of the applicant's incapacity and the appropriate compensation and medical expenses payable under the relevant sections of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court found that the applicant had indeed sustained injuries to his head, cervical spine, and right shoulder during the course of his employment. These injuries exacerbated his pre-existing psychological condition, leading to a complete incapacity to work since 24 March 2018. The court acknowledged the respondents' credit for payments made during the period of the applicant's entitlement to weekly compensation. It was determined that the respondents were to pay weekly compensation under sections 36 and 47 of the 1987 Act, with adjustments to the applicant's Permanent Impairment Assessment Weekly Entitlement (PIAWE) as per section 82A. Furthermore, the respondents were directed to pay for the applicant's medical and related treatment expenses in accordance with sections 59 and 60 of the 1987 Act.

The final orders included that the respondents were to pay the applicant weekly compensation and medical expenses, with adjustments to his PIAWE, and to receive credit for payments already made.

Orders