Legal Research
Cases
Grant v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd

Grant v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd

Case [2022] NSWPICPD 3 24 January 2022

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Grant v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPICPD 3
APPELLANT:	James Leslie Grant
RESPONDENT:	Dateline Imports Pty Ltd
INSURER:	AAI Limited t/as GIO
FILE NUMBER:	A1-7430/20
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	24 January 2022
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Principal Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 16 April 2021 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – Consequential condition – circumstances in which a diagnosis of the condition is relevant – Arquero v Shannons Anti Corrosion Engineers Pty Ltd [2019] NSWWCCPD 3, Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd [2012] NSWWCCPD 8, Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan [2016] NSWWCCPD 23 discussed – requirement for expert medical opinion
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr W Carney, counsel
PK Simpson & Co
Respondent:
Ms L Goodman, counsel
Hicksons Lawyers

DECISION UNDER APPEAL
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	Ms J Bamber
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	16 April 2021

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

James Leslie Grant (the appellant) was injured on 31 July 2015 in the course of his employment as a storeman and packer with Dateline Imports Pty Ltd (the respondent). The appellant was required to lift a heavy box, which fell onto his right hand, pinning his hand down. The appellant reported the injury two weeks later. Liability for the injury to the appellant’s right upper extremity, which was his non-dominant hand, was accepted.
The appellant subsequently alleged that he experienced pain in his left arm as a consequence of using his left upper limb more often because of the right arm injury. He further alleged that he had developed a complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) as a result of the injury.
The appellant commenced proceedings in the Workers Compensation Commission in which he claimed lump sum entitlements pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of the permanent impairment of his right upper extremity, left upper extremity and CRPS. The respondent disputed that the appellant suffered a consequential condition in his left arm as a result of the injury and also disputed that the appellant suffered from CRPS.
On 1 March 2021, prior to the matter being listed for arbitration, the Workers Compensation Commission was abolished by operation of cl 3 of Div 2 of Pt 2 of Sch 1 to the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (the 2020 Act). The matter then became one within the Workers Compensation Division of the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) from that date.[1] The matter was listed for arbitration and allocated to a Principal Member of the Commission, Ms J Bamber. The Principal Member issued a Certificate of Determination dated 16 April 2021. The Principal Member did not accept that the appellant suffered a consequential condition in his left arm as a result of the injury and determined that the question of whether the appellant had a rateable diagnosis of CRPS 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.

Continue reading Grant v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Grant v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPICPD 3
Case: [2022] NSWPICPD 3
Decision Date: 24 January 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grant brought an action against Dateline Imports Pty Ltd, seeking compensation for a consequential condition arising from a work-related injury. The dispute centred on whether the consequential condition was properly diagnosed and if the employer's liability should extend to this diagnosis. The case was heard and determined by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the consequential condition was appropriately diagnosed and whether the employer's liability extended to the diagnosis of this condition. This issue hinged on the interpretation of previous cases, including Arquero v Shannons Anti Corrosion Engineers Pty Ltd, Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, and Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan, which discussed the relevance of a diagnosis in determining a consequential condition. The Tribunal needed to decide if the diagnosis of the condition was a necessary component for the employer's liability under workers' compensation law.

The Tribunal found that the diagnosis of the consequential condition was crucial in establishing the employer's liability. The expert medical opinion was deemed essential to confirm the existence and nature of the condition. The Tribunal noted that the absence of a proper diagnosis could undermine the claimant's ability to prove the consequential condition and, therefore, the employer's liability. This reasoning aligns with the principles established in the previous cases cited. Based on its analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the employer was liable for the consequential condition, provided that a proper diagnosis had been made. This decision underscored the necessity of expert medical opinion in such cases to substantiate the diagnosis of a consequential condition.

The Tribunal ordered that Dateline Imports Pty Ltd be held liable for the consequential condition suffered by Grant. The employer was required to compensate Grant for the condition, contingent on the provision of a proper diagnosis supported by an expert medical opinion. This decision reinforces the importance of accurate medical diagnosis in workers' compensation claims involving consequential conditions.

Orders