Grant v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd - [2021] NSWPIC 83

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Grant v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 83
APPLICANT:	James Leslie Grant
RESPONDENT:	Dateline Imports Pty Ltd
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	Ms Josephine Bamber
DATE OF DECISION:	16 April 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Lump sum claim; agreed right upper extremity injury; disputed claims in relation to Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and consequential condition in left upper extremity due to overuse; Held- applied Elsworthy v Forgacs Engineering Pty Ltd that whether there is a rateable diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome is a matter for a Medical Assessor; right upper extremity injury and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (affecting the right upper extremity) remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor; award for the respondent in relation to alleged consequential condition in the left upper extremity on the basis that the onus of proof was not discharged; Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd applied.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Award for the respondent in relation to the allegation of a consequential condition in the applicant’s left upper extremity from overuse as a result of the injury to the right upper extremity on 31 July 2015. 2. That the issue of whether the applicant has a rateable diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome is a matter for assessment by a Medical Assessor. 3. The lump sum claim is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess permanent impairment as follows: a. Body parts/systems: right upper extremity and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (affecting the right upper extremity). b. Date of injury: 31 July 2015. 4. The documents to be referred to the Medical Assessor are to include those attached to the Application to Resolve a Dispute, Reply and Application to Admit Late Documents dated 15 January 2021.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

James Leslie Grant, the applicant, was employed with the respondent, Dateline Imports Pty Ltd, from 1 July 1995 as a storeman and packer. On 31 July 2015 he was required to pull and lift a heavy box weighing approximately 22 kg. He says while he was doing this the corner of the box fell onto his right hand, pinning it in hyperextension for a short time. He says he thought the pain he experienced in his hand would go away, but after about two weeks he reported the injury to the respondent as the pain had not resolved. Injury to the right upper extremity is accepted by the respondent. Mr Grant is left hand dominant.
Mr Grant alleges that he developed a condition in his left arm as a consequence of the injury to his right arm because he says he had to use his left upper limb a lot more to make up for the pain in his right arm. He also claims he has developed complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). In these proceedings Mr Grant is seeking lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) alleging permanent impairment to the right upper extremity,…

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 Grant v Dateline Imports 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: [2021] NSWPIC 83
Decision Date: 16 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grant v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd involved a dispute regarding workers' compensation claims. The applicant, Grant, sought compensation for injuries sustained during employment with the respondent, Dateline Imports Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on a right upper extremity injury, as well as claims for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and a consequential condition in the left upper extremity due to overuse. The matter was heard in the relevant workers' compensation tribunal.

The legal issues the court needed to resolve included whether there was a rateable diagnosis of CRPS affecting the right upper extremity and whether the applicant had a consequential condition in the left upper extremity. The court applied Elsworthy v Forgacs Engineering Pty Ltd to determine that the existence of a rateable diagnosis of CRPS is a matter for a Medical Assessor. The court also considered the onus of proof in relation to the consequential condition in the left upper extremity.

The tribunal found that the right upper extremity injury and the CRPS affecting the right upper extremity were to be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor. However, the award for the respondent was upheld in relation to the alleged consequential condition in the left upper extremity, as the applicant had failed to discharge the onus of proof. The decision followed the principles set out in Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd. The tribunal emphasised the importance of a proper diagnosis and the burden of proof in workers' compensation claims.

The final orders of the tribunal included the remission of the right upper extremity injury and CRPS affecting the right upper extremity to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor and the upholding of the award for the respondent in relation to the alleged consequential condition in the left upper extremity.

Orders