Hall v Altus Traffic Pty Ltd - [2022] NSWPIC 208

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Hall v Altus Traffic Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 208
APPLICANT:	Peter Hall
RESPONDENT:	Altus Traffic Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Nicholas Read
DATE OF DECISION:	10 May 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for weekly benefits compensation; whether claimed injury to the lumbar spine had resolved; nature and extent of injury suffered by the applicant; assessment of factual and medical opinion evidence; Held– satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the workplace injury had not resolved; satisfied that applicant Award for applicant on the claim for weekly benefits compensation.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The Application to Resolve a Dispute is amended to claim weekly benefits compensation from 2 November 2021 to date and continuing. 2. Award for the applicant on the claim for weekly benefits compensation. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly benefits compensation pursuant to section 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 from 2 November 2021 to date and continuing at a rate of $1,000.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Peter Hall (the applicant) suffered an injury to his back in the course of his employment with the Altus Traffic Pty Ltd, the respondent, when lifting a boom gate from the back of a trailer in slippery and wet conditions.
Mr Hall received treatment and eventually returned to his pre-injury duties. Mr Hall complained of aggravations to his back injury from a defective work vehicle and his daily living activities.
On 7 October 2021 respondent issued a dispute notice under which it declined liability for Mr Hall’s claim. The dispute notice was issued on the basis that Mr Hall’s injury had resolved and it was therefore no longer liable to pay weekly benefits compensation for any incapacity for work suffered by him. The effect of the denial of liability was that Mr Hall’s entitlement to weekly benefits compensation ended on 1 November 2021.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

The respondent notified the matters in dispute a notice issued pursuant to sections 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) dated 7 October 2021.
For the purpose of this application the issues in dispute were defined as follows:
(a) Whether the injury sustained by Mr Hall on 4 March 2020 has resolved?
(b) If not, what is Mr Hall’s entitlement to weekly benefits compensation as a result of the injury on 4 March 2020?
The parties agreed that Mr Hall’s preinjury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) is $1,250.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INSURY COMMISSION (COMMISSION)

The parties attended a conciliation/arbitration before me on 20 April 2022.
Mr Greg Young of counsel appeared for the applicant instructed by Turner Freeman Lawyers. Ms Kavita Balandra of counsel appeared for the respondent instructed by Hicksons Lawyers.
I was satisfied that the parties to the dispute understood the nature of the application and the legal implications of the assertions made in the information supplied. I used my best endeavours to attempt to bring the parties to a settlement acceptable to them. I was satisfied that the…

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 Hall v Altus Traffic Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Hall v Altus Traffic Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 208
Case: [2022] NSWPIC 208
Decision Date: 10 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hall v Altus Traffic Pty Ltd involved a claim for weekly benefits compensation brought by the applicant, who alleged that he had sustained an injury to his lumbar spine in the course of his employment. The dispute was heard and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Australia. The applicant sought compensation for the injury he claimed to have suffered, arguing that it had not fully resolved and continued to impact his ability to work.

The legal issues that the Tribunal was required to decide included whether the applicant had indeed suffered an injury to his lumbar spine in the workplace, the nature and extent of the injury, and whether the injury had resolved. Additionally, the Tribunal had to assess the factual and medical opinion evidence presented by both parties to determine the veracity of the applicant's claims and the appropriate level of compensation, if any, to be awarded.

The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence presented and found that it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the workplace injury had not resolved. The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed suffered a lumbar spine injury in the course of his employment and that the injury was of a nature and extent that continued to impact his ability to work. The Tribunal further found that the applicant's claims were supported by credible medical evidence and that the factual evidence presented was consistent with the applicant's account of the events leading to the injury. Based on these findings, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the applicant for his ongoing injury and the impact it had on his ability to work.

The Tribunal ordered that Altus Traffic Pty Ltd pay the applicant weekly benefits compensation in recognition of the injury he had suffered and the impact it had on his ability to work. The Tribunal determined that the appropriate amount of compensation to be paid was based on the extent of the injury and the impact it had on the applicant's ability to work, and made an order accordingly.

Orders