Hallmann v Southern Cross University - [2025] NSWPICPD 26

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Hallmann v Southern Cross University [2025] NSWPICPD 26
APPELLANT:	Geoffrey Peter Hallmann
RESPONDENT:	Southern Cross University
INSURER:	Employers Mutual NSW Limited
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W7993/23
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Acting Deputy President Geoffrey Parker SC
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	27 March 2025
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 26 April 2024 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – Section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 – claim for cost of physiotherapy treatment; gym membership; personal training, and exercise physiology – the Member made orders for payment of treatment for a particular time period – appeal by worker seeking orders for those treatment expenses to be paid for the duration of the worker’s lifetime – consideration of treating doctor’s reports – section 59A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Self-represented
Respondent:
Mr S Grant, counsel
Gair Legal
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Hallmann v Southern Cross University [2024] NSWPIC 209
MEMBER:	Mr G Whiffin
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	26 April 2024

INTRODUCTION

The appeal is from a decision of the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) made on 26 April 2024.
The Commission determined and issued a Certificate of Determination which provided relevantly as follows:
“1.     Physiotherapy treatment is reasonably necessary medical treatment for the [appellant] as a result of his accepted injuries on 1 July 2020 as well as his accepted injuries on 15 October 2022. He is to be afforded eight weeks of physiotherapy treatment three times per week in accordance with Emile du Plessis’ request dated 6 April 2023. The Commission only has evidence before it to allow it to order this period of physiotherapy treatment. If the [appellant] requires physiotherapy treatment for a longer period, he will need to make an appropriate claim upon the respondent in this regard. The Commission currently makes no determination regarding the [appellant’s] entitlements following the period referred to in Emile du Plessis’ request.
2.      Gym membership is reasonably necessary medical treatment for the [appellant] as a result of his accepted injuries on 1 July 2020 as well as his accepted injuries on 15 October 2022. He is to be afforded gym membership for three months in accordance with the tax invoice from Byron Gym dated 11 April 2023. The Commission only has evidence before it to allow it to order this period of gym membership. If the [appellant] requires gym membership for a longer period, he will need to make an appropriate claim upon the respondent in this regard. The Commission currently makes no determination regarding the [appellant’s] entitlements following the period referred to in the tax invoice from Byron Gym.
3.      Personal training is reasonably necessary medical treatment for the [appellant] as a result of his accepted injuries on 1 July 2020 as well as his accepted injuries on 15 October 2022. He is to be afforded 13 weeks of personal training twice per week in…

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 Hallmann v Southern Cross University 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: [2025] NSWPICPD 26
Decision Date: 27 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hallmann v Southern Cross University, the dispute involved a claim for compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) for the cost of various physiotherapy treatments, including gym membership, personal training, and exercise physiology. The worker, Hallmann, argued that these treatments should be covered for the duration of his lifetime due to his ongoing injury and need for rehabilitation. The initial decision by the Member of the Workers Compensation Commission was to order payment of these treatments only for a limited period, prompting an appeal by Hallmann seeking lifetime coverage.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Member had erred in law by restricting the duration of the treatment orders. The court had to consider the statutory provisions of section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, which governs the types of benefits payable, and section 59A, which provides for the assessment of claims. Hallmann contended that the Member should have adopted a more generous interpretation of the statutory provisions to allow for lifetime treatment, particularly in light of the treating doctor's reports which indicated an ongoing need for such treatments.

The court found that the Member had not erred in limiting the duration of the treatment orders. The court held that the statutory framework did not mandate lifetime coverage for such treatments and that the Member's decision was consistent with the statutory provisions. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the legislative intent behind section 60 and found that the Member had appropriately exercised their discretion in making the orders for a particular time period. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court. The decision underscored the need for a balanced approach in interpreting workers' compensation statutes, taking into account the specific circumstances of the injured worker while remaining within the bounds of legislative intent.

Orders