| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| Citation: | Hallmann v Southern Cross University [2022] NSWPIC 292 |
| APPLICANT: | Geoffrey Peter Hallmann |
| RESPONDENT: | Southern Cross University |
| Member: | John Isaksen |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 15 June 2022 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for weekly payments for aggravation of spinal injury and myalgic encephalomyeltits/ chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) while working from home during the covid pandemic; also orders sought pursuant to section 60(5) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) for various home modifications and medical treatment; whether effects of the aggravation of spinal injury and ME/CFS had ceased; reference to AV v AW on employment being the main contributing factor to the aggravation of diseases; reference to Rose v Health Commission (NSW) in regard to claim for medical and related treatment; Held- worker continues to suffer the effects of aggravation of spinal injury and ME/CFS; worker has had partial incapacity for work since 1 December 2021 and award of weekly payments made; orders made for the respondent to pay for certain medical treatment and home modifications pursuant to section 60(5) of the 1987 Act. |
| determinations made: | 1. 1. The applicant sustained injury in the course of his employment with the respondent by way of a disease injury pursuant to section 4 (b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. 2. The deemed date of injury pursuant to section 16 (1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 is 1 July 2020, being the date of the applicant’s incapacity for that injury. 3. 3. The applicant has had a partial incapacity for work since 1 December 2021. 4. 4. The applicant has had a capacity to earn $340 per week from 1 December 2021. |
| ORDERS made: | 1. 1. The respondent is to pay weekly payments of compensation to the applicant pursuant to section 37 (3) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as follows: a. (a) $1,855.70 per week from 1 December 2021 to 31 March 2022; and b. (b) $1,884 per week from 1 April 2022 to date and continuing. c. 2. Pursuant to section 60 (5) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the respondent is to pay for the costs of trials of a suitable office chair to be used by the applicant in his home under the supervision of a medical practitioner, and to pay for a suitable office chair upon the recommendation of a medical practitioner. d. 3. Pursuant to section 60 (5) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the respondent is pay for the following: e. (a) Sealy Vienna plush king mattress; f. (b) 1800mm x 1500mm electric height adjustable work station; g. (c) ottoman; h. (d) air relax compression system; i. (e) wearable monitoring apparatus; j. (f) IV saline solution each month for the next year; and k. (g) Isagenix diet each week for the next six months. l. 4. The respondent is to pay for the cost of the Isagenix diet, consultations with Dr Bird and medications which have been incurred by the applicant, which have resulted from… |
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWPIC 292
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the effects of the aggravation of the spinal injury and ME/CFS had ceased, and if not, whether the worker was entitled to ongoing weekly compensation payments. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the respondent was entitled to orders for home modifications and medical treatments under section 60(5) of the 1987 Act. The court referenced previous cases, AV v AW and Rose v Health Commission (NSW), to assist in determining these issues.
The court found that the worker continued to suffer from the effects of the aggravation of their spinal injury and ME/CFS, and had been partially incapacitated for work since 1 December 2021. The court accepted the evidence that the worker's employment was a significant contributing factor to the aggravation of their conditions, as per the principles established in AV v AW. Furthermore, the court ruled that the worker was entitled to the requested home modifications and medical treatments under section 60(5) of the 1987 Act, following the reasoning in Rose v Health Commission (NSW). The court made orders for the university to pay for the relevant medical treatment and home modifications, as well as weekly payments to the worker due to their partial incapacity for work.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.