Hallmann v Southern Cross University - [2024] NSWPIC 209

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Hallmann v Southern Cross University [2024] NSWPIC 209
APPLICANT:	Geoffrey Peter Hallmann
RESPONDENT:	Southern Cross University
MEMBER:	Gaius Whiffin
DATE OF DECISION:	26 April 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claims for spinal injuries, aggravation of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome with fibromyalgia, and other consequential conditions (accepted injuries); claim for treatment expenses pursuant to section 60; consideration of applicant’s and other statements, medical reports and other treatment records, claim correspondence, and factual material; consideration of whether the treatment expenses are reasonably necessary medical treatment as a result of the applicant’s accepted injuries on 1 July 2020 as well as the applicant’s accepted injuries on 15 October 2020; if so, what is the extent to which the treatment is required and what is the frequency in relation to which the treatment is required; Rose v Health Commission (NSW), Diab v NRMA Limited, and Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Limited considered; Held – physiotherapy treatment, gym membership, personal training, and exercise physiology are reasonably necessary medical treatment for the applicant 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, gym membership for three months in accordance with the tax invoice from Byron Gym dated 11 April 2023, 13 weeks of personal training twice per week in accordance with Jason Mickan’s request dated 30 August 2023, and eight weeks of exercise physiology once per week in accordance with Tim Boyd’s request dated 9 March 2023; the Commission only has evidence before it to allow it to order these periods of treatment; if the applicant requires 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 applicant’s entitlements following the periods referred to; award for the applicant accordingly.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Physiotherapy treatment is reasonably necessary medical treatment for the applicant 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 applicant 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 applicant’s entitlements following the period referred to in Emile du Plessis’ request. 2. Gym membership is reasonably necessary medical treatment for the applicant 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…

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: [2024] NSWPIC 209
Decision Date: 26 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hallmann v Southern Cross University, the primary dispute involved a claim for workers' compensation, focusing on the applicant's entitlement to treatment expenses under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The applicant, Hallmann, sought compensation for treatment expenses related to spinal injuries, aggravation of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome with fibromyalgia, and other consequential conditions, which were accepted as injuries. The matter was heard and determined by the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court revolved around whether the treatment expenses claimed by Hallmann were reasonably necessary medical treatment resulting from his accepted injuries on two specific dates: 1 July 2020 and 15 October 2020. The court was required to assess the necessity and extent of these treatments, as well as their frequency, based on the available evidence. This included evaluating the applicant's and other statements, medical reports, treatment records, claim correspondence, and other factual material. The court also considered relevant precedents, such as Rose v Health Commission (NSW), Diab v NRMA Limited, and Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Limited, to guide its decision.

After considering the evidence and legal principles, the Commission determined that the physiotherapy treatment, gym membership, personal training, and exercise physiology were reasonably necessary medical treatments for Hallmann as a result of his injuries. The court ordered specific periods of treatment: eight weeks of physiotherapy three times a week, a three-month gym membership, 13 weeks of personal training twice a week, and eight weeks of exercise physiology once a week. The court noted that this was the extent of treatment that the evidence supported at that time and did not make any determination regarding future entitlements. The decision concluded with an award for Hallmann accordingly.

Orders