Harris v United Resource Management
[2025] NSWPIC 207
•14 May 2025
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | Harris v United Resource Management [2025] NSWPIC 207 |
| APPLICANT: | Mark Harris |
| RESPONDENT: | URM Environmental Services Pty Limited |
| MEMBER: | John Turner |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 14 May 2025 |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; sections 32A, 33, 38, and clause 9 of Schedule 3 considered; whether incapacity due to accepted injury; dispute as to partial or total incapacity; dispute as to entitlement to compensation under section 38; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Wollongong Nursing Home Pty Ltd v Dewar, Roberts v University of Sydney, Holmes v Central Coast Council, and Houghton v Jack & Jill Pre-School Association (Lithgow) Incorporated cited; Held – the applicant has no current work capacity as a result of incapacity arising from the accepted work injury; the applicant is entitled to compensation pursuant to section 38; the respondent to pay the applicant pursuant to section 38. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | The Commission determines: 1. By consent the name of the respondent is amended to “URM Environmental Services Pty Limited”. 2. That the applicant has no current work capacity as a result of incapacity arising from the accepted work injury. 3. That the applicant is “likely to continue indefinitely to have no current work capacity”. 4. That the applicant is entitled to compensation pursuant to s 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act). 5. The respondent to pay the applicant pursuant to s 38 of the 1987 Act: (a) $1,456 from 27 August 2024 to 30 September 2024; (b) $1,488 from 1 October 2024 to 31 March 2025, and (c) $1,496 from 1 April 2025 to date and continuing subject to indexation. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
Mr Mark Harris (applicant) has brought proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) in which he alleges that he sustained injury to his right knee, right hip and right leg on 26 August 2020 when he tripped on tree roots protruding from under a footpath whilst pulling a rubbish bin in the course of his employment with URM Environmental Services Pty Limited (respondent).
The applicant seeks weekly benefits compensation from 27 August 2024 to date and continuing pursuant to s 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act).
The parties have agreed the applicant’s “pre-injury average weekly earnings” (PIAWE) as at 26 August 2020 at $1,536.80.
It appears that the injury in fact occurred either on 17 or 18 August 2020 rather than 26 August 2020 however injury is not disputed. It is the applicant’s evidence that the injury was sustained on 17 August 2020 which is consistent with the history taken by Dr Bodel as well as the clinical record of Dr Allison Charnock of 19 August 2020.
The applicant commenced employment with the respondent on or around 21 December 2018 as a driver of a recycling truck. The applicant’s work duties involved the driving and operation of a recycling truck as well as the manual loading of bins and the operation of a mechanical lifter.
It is the applicant’s evidence that on 17 August 2020 he was pushing bins from the footpath to the road to be emptied into the truck when tripped over some tree roots that were sticking out of the footpath. As he tripped his right knee bent and twisted and he fell down across the gutter. That he had some pain at the time but continued to work, reporting the injury when he returned to the depot. He attended on his general practitioner (GP), Dr Charnock wo referred him for scans, physiotherapy and hydrotherapy. He was also referred to the Dr Alex Nicholls, orthopaedic surgeon. It is the applicant’s evidence that he was able to return to work performing his full duties a “short time after the injury.”[1]
[1] Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) pp 1-2.
It is the applicant’s evidence that on 8 July 2021 he was picking up recycling material and as he was “moving things around” he stepped back, and his right leg went into a hole. He immediately felt pain in his right leg. He continued to work with increasing pain and reported the injury on returning to the depot. He attended on the GP, Dr Cho, and was referred for more scans and physiotherapy as well as being referred back to Dr Nicholls. He had some time off work but continued to work as “best I could."[2]
[2] ARD p 2.
The applicant’s employment with the respondent was terminated on 27 September 2021 and it is the applicant’s evidence that he has not been able to find work since.[3]
[3] ARD p 3.
It is the applicant’s evidence that he continues to have pain in his right knee every day, that he struggles to walk even short distances and now has to use crutches, struggles to stand for even moderate periods and uses a “wheelchair when the pain gets really bad.”[4]
[4] ARD p 4.
In support of his case the applicant relies on a forensic report of Dr James Bodel, orthopaedic surgeon, dated 20 November 2024.
Dr Bodel observed that the applicant could not fully extend the knee. In the opinion of Dr Bodel, the applicant has a degenerative knee in the medial compartment and the only treatment that would assist him is a total knee replacement which the applicant was “most reluctant” to consider at that time. Dr Bodel reported that the applicant complained of excruciating pain.
Dr Bodel observed that the applicant was “mostly uncomfortable” and that he used crutches when walking. Dr Bodel’s observations in respect to his examination of the applicant included a fixed flexion deformity of the knee of about 30° with loss of range of motion as well as tenderness, some tenderness of the lumbar spine on palpation, backache and loss of range of motion.
Dr Bodel diagnosed a torn medial meniscus in the region of the right knee and the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation and deterioration of previously asymptomatic degenerative change in that knee as well as a soft tissue musculoligamentous injury to the lower part of the back.
In the opinion of Dr Bodel, the applicant has no current capacity for work being “totally and permanently incapacitated for work for which he has appropriate levels of education, physical fitness, training and experience.” Dr Bodel was of the opinion however that with a good outcome from a total knee replacement, the applicant “may be able to return to his pre-injury type duties.”[5]
[5] ARD p 9.
In support of its case the respondent relies on reports from Dr Con Kafataris, injury management consultant, dated 4 June 2023 and 16 April 2025.
Dr Kafataris only examined the applicant on the one occasion which was for the purposes of his 4 June 2023 report. Dr Kafataris noted that Dr Nicholls had recommended medial uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty. The applicant reported to Dr Kafataris that the specialist involved was quite concerned about performing the procedure and that he had been advised that there was a risk that his leg would be amputated if he had surgery.
Dr Kafataris reported that the applicant complained of constant pain in a global fashion over his entire right knee as well as lower back and hip pain. The applicant reported that his pain was so severe that he used crutches all the time. When he needed to go shopping he would often use a wheelchair.
Dr Kafataris records that the applicant had worked for the respondent as a truck driver for five years and had done truck driving for at least twenty years before this.[6]
[6] Reply p 2.
Dr Kafataris reported that the physical examination was very difficult given significant guarding and pain behaviour however the doctor did observe a restricted range of motion of the right knee, right knee tenderness as well as obvious varus deformity of the right knee. The applicant would not allow any meaningful examination of the lumbar spine.
In the opinion of Dr Kafataris the applicant presented with obvious osteoarthritis of the right knee. There is medial compartment degeneration and Dr Kafataris agreed with the diagnosis made by Dr Nicholls, the applicant’s treating orthopaedic surgeon.
In the opinion of Dr Kafataris, despite the applicant’s symptoms, he:
“…would be fit for some form of limited suitable duties of a purely sedentary nature. Even if one accepts the worker could work using crutches on a daily basis, he would be fit for seated work with a lifting restriction of 4kg in total and 2kg with either upper limb. He could perform duties that were primarily sedentary with very short periods of stranding i.e., five minutes an hour to break up the sitting. It should be obvious that the worker will not be able to perform duties that require squatting kneeling or stair climbing.”[7]
The doctor could see no reason why the applicant could not work full-time in sedentary duties.
[7] Reply p 4.
In the opinion of Dr Kafataris if surgery is to proceed then return to work should wait until after an appropriate post-operative rehabilitation protocol. If he does not choose to have surgery, then there would be no reason to delay return to work. The doctor observed that the applicant is likely to also require retraining, and the insurer would need to investigate suitable employment and/or retraining.
Dr Kafataris in his supplementary report of 16 April 2025 observes that he is not qualified to provide any comments on what would be considered suitable employment options as far as vocational redeployment.
On 21 September 2020 Dr Allison Charnock noted persisting right knee pain.[8] On 14 October 2020 Dr Nicholls diagnosed exacerbation of right knee medial meniscus degenerative tear as a result of work injury.[9]
[8] ARD p 10.
[9] ARD p 13.
On 27 October 2021 Dr Nicholls diagnosed right knee acute on chronic medial meniscus tear with extrusion into medial gutter as well as established bone on bone osteoarthritis in medial compartment of right knee joint with varus knee alignment. The applicant was noted to walk with an antalgic gait and “profound limp”. In the opinion of Dr Nicholls there was clear evidence of deterioration of osteoarthritis in his right knee since the original injury. The doctor was happy to offer the applicant medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.[10]
[10] ARD pp 2-24.
On 5 July 2023 Mr Jimmy Nguyen, physiotherapist, observed that the applicant had a lifting capacity of up to 3kg which was difficult due to the use of two Canadian crutches, nil capacity to push or pull due to use of crutches and walking and standing capacity of no more than 10 minutes before he needs a break. Mr Nguyen reported that he had been treating the applicant who had reported ongoing right knee symptoms describing the symptoms as intermittent 9 out of 10 on the visual analogue scale, sharp in the right knee aggravated by standing and walking. His symptoms are relieved by physiotherapy, walking with crutches and resting. The applicant also reported intermittent symptoms down his right leg such as pins and needles as well as right hip symptoms. The applicant also complained lower back pain.[11]
[11] ARD pp 25-26.
In a series of Certificates of Capacity (with some gaps in the certificates) the applicant has been certified with no current capacity for work from 28 September 2024 to 24 May 2025 due to the knee injury.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) incapacity for work resulting from an injury: s 33 of the 1987 Act, and
(b) entitlement to compensation under s 38 of the 1987 Act.
PROCEDURE BEFORE COMMISSION
The matter was listed for conciliation conference/arbitration hearing before me on 1 May 2025. Mr Josh Beran, counsel, instructed by Schofield King Lawyers, appeared for the applicant, who was present. Mr John Gaitanis, counsel, instructed by HML Ebsworth Lawyers, appeared for the respondent. The proceedings were conducted in-person. I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence
The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and considered in making this determination:
(a) ARD and attached documents;
(b) Reply and attached documents;
(c) Application to Lodge Additional Documents lodged (ALAD) on behalf of the applicant dated 9 April 2025 and attached documents, and
(d) ALAD lodged on behalf of the respondent dated 28 April 2025 and attached documents.
Oral evidence
No oral evidence was adduced.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Amendments to the pleadings
By consent the name of the respondent is amended to “URM Environmental Services Pty Limited”.
Injury
It is not disputed that the applicant sustained injury on 26 August 2020 as alleged.
Incapacity
The applicant submits that he is totally incapacitated for work as a result of the accepted injury on 26 August 2020. The applicant bears the onus of proving incapacity resulting from the accepted injury on the balance of probabilities. What is required is a commonsense evaluation of the causal chain.[12]
[12] Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452.
Section 33 of the 1987 Act states:
“33 Weekly compensation during total or partial incapacity for work
If total or partial incapacity for work results from an injury, the compensation payable by the employer under this Act to the injured worker shall include a weekly payment during the incapacity.
Note.
Chapter 3 of the 1998 Act (Workplace injury management) provides that, if a worker fails unreasonably to comply with a requirement of that Chapter after being requested to do so by an insurer, the worker has no entitlement to weekly payments of compensation for the period that the failure continues.”
Clause 9 of Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act defines “current work capacity” and “no current work capacity” and states:
“9 Meaning of ‘current work capacity’ and ‘no current work capacity’
(1) An injured worker has current work capacity if the worker has a present inability arising from the injury such that the worker is able to return to the worker’s pre-injury employment, or is able to return to work in suitable employment, but the weekly amount that the worker has the capacity to earn in any such employment is less than the weekly amount that the worker had the capacity to earn in that employment immediately before the injury.
(2) An injured worker has no current work capacity if the worker has a present inability arising from an injury such that the worker is not able to return to work, either in the worker’s pre-injury employment or in suitable employment.”
There is no dispute that the applicant is incapacitated for his pre-injury duties. There is no evidence which supports the applicant having a current capacity to perform his pre-injury duties.
The issue to be determined is whether, as a result of the accepted injury, the applicant has “no current work capacity” or whether he has capacity for “suitable employment”.
Suitable employment is defined in s 32A of the 1987 Act as follows:
“suitable employment, in relation to a worker, means employment in work for which the worker is currently suited—
(a)having regard to—
(i)the nature of the worker’s incapacity and the details provided in medical information including, but not limited to, any certificate of capacity supplied by the worker (under section 44B), and
(ii)the worker’s age, education, skills and work experience, and
(iii)any plan or document prepared as part of the return to work planning process, including an injury management plan under Chapter 3 of the 1998 Act, and
(iv)any occupational rehabilitation services that are being, or have been, provided to or for the worker, and
(v)such other matters as the Workers Compensation Guidelines may specify, and
(b)regardless of—
(i)whether the work or the employment is available, and
(ii)whether the work or the employment is of a type or nature that is generally available in the employment market, and
(iii)the nature of the worker’s pre-injury employment, and
(iv)the worker’s place of residence.”
The respondent in its submission questioned whether it was plausible that the applicant would require the use of crutches and at times a wheelchair for an osteoarthritic knee condition. In my view the use of crutches and at times a wheelchair is plausible. There is no dispute that the applicant suffers from a significant right knee condition for which Dr Nicholls has offered the applicant a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and Dr Bodel has suggested a total knee replacement.
The applicant complains of significant pain reporting intermittent pian up to 9 out of 10 on the visual analogue scale. The clinical notes from the Chatswood Medical and Dental Centre record regular complaints of knee pain by the applicant for which, at times, he was prescribed Panadeine Forte. The applicant’s physiotherapist, Mr Nguyen, notes that the applicant’s knee symptoms are relieved by walking with crutches and resting. In my view it is entirely plausible and reasonable that the applicant would use crutches and at times a wheelchair if such provides some relief from the pain which he has been suffering for a number of years.
The respondent submitted that the comments by Dr Kafataris that the applicant’s case is complicated by significant yellow flags and the applicant’s heavy medicolegal focus need to be considered. I accept that it is necessary to consider the evidence with care. However, Dr Kafataris also observed that the applicant “does indeed have obvious degenerative disease of the right knee”. In the circumstances it is not surprising that the applicant would have a medico-legal focus given that he has an accepted injury that undisputedly prevents him from at least performing his pre-injury duties and the outcome of these proceedings is of significance to him financially.
The respondent submitted that the opinion of Dr Bodel as to incapacity should not be accepted. In the respondent’s submission the pleaded injury is limited to the right knee, right hip and right leg. However, Dr Bodel also refers to lower back pain, diagnosing a soft tissue musculoligamentous injury to the lower part of the back. In the respondent’s submission Dr Bodel does not in providing his opinion that the applicant has no current work capacity identify whether the incapacity is caused by the accepted injuries to the right knee, right hip and right leg or other conditions such as the back condition.
Whilst Dr Bodel does not directly identify the conditions which he is relying on in reaching his opinion, it is however clear from Dr Bodel’s report that it is the right knee injury. Dr Bodel in his report records that the applicant indicated that his right knee was the source of “excruciating pain” and whilst the doctor records that the applicant had lower back, right buttock and right hip pain the doctor observed that with a good outcome from a total knee replacement the applicant may be able to return to his pre-injury duties.
In respect to the opinion of Dr Bodel that the applicant at the time of reporting was totally incapacitated for work for which he has appropriate levels of education, physical fitness, training and experience. The respondent submits that there is no evidence as to the applicant’s education, skills, expertise or training. This is not in my view correct. Whilst the applicant’s training, education, skills and experience are not discussed in detail in the evidence, Dr Bodel does record that the applicant was employed by the respondent driving a large rear loaded truck. The applicant appears to have little else in the way of training education and experience as Dr Kafataris records that the applicant had worked as a truck driver for at least twenty years prior to working for the respondent.[13]
[13] Reply p 2.
The respondent was critical of the lack of a report from the applicant’s treating orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Nicholls. Whilst it is true that there is no opinion from Dr Nicholls in respect to incapacity there are reports from Dr Nicholls providing his opinion as to diagnosis and treatment. Whilst an opinion from Dr Nicholls may have added to the opinions, the applicant has put on medical evidence in respect to incapacity in the form of the forensic report from Dr Bodel as well as certificates of capacity.
The respondent made submissions in respect to there being some uncertainty in the evidence as to whether the applicant intends to undergo right knee surgery. The applicant, at least as of 28 September 2024, was on the wait list for a right knee operation.[14] The applicant did express to Dr Kafataris that he was reluctant to consider the operation. However, it also needs to be noted that Dr Kafataris records that the applicant reported that he had been advised that there was a risk of amputation if he had the surgery. It is understandable in my view that the applicant would have some reservations if he is of the belief that amputation is a potential risk. In any event I accept the applicant’s submission that even if the applicant chooses not to have the surgery that should not be considered in any determination in respect to incapacity.
[14] Respondent ALAD p 14.
The respondent pointed to the fact that the applicant was able to resume his work duties with the respondent following the accepted injury. Whilst the applicant did return to work with the respondent it is clear on the medical evidence that the applicant’s condition has deteriorated. In particular I note that the applicant’s employment with the respondent was terminated on 27 September 2021 and on 27 October 2021 Dr Nicholls reported to Dr Cho that there was clear evidence of deterioration of osteoarthritis in the right knee since the original knee injury and at that time the doctor recommenced the medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Both parties accept, and the medical evidence supports that the applicant does not have the capacity to return to his pre-injury duties and in the applicant’s submission he has no current work capacity.
The respondent in its submissions questioned whether the applicant required the crutches for his knee condition or his back condition. The evidence supports that the crutches are being used due to the knee injury with Mr Nguyen, the physiotherapist, reporting that the use of crutches provides relief from the knee symptoms.
The respondent submits that I should accept the opinion of Dr Kafataris in respect to capacity. It was observed on behalf of the applicant that the report of Dr Kafataris of 4 June 2023 was a year old by the time that the notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act) was issued on 9 July 2024. In the applicant’s submission whilst Dr Kafataris provides an opinion that the applicant could perform seated sedentary work duties the doctor was also of the opinion that the applicant would likely require retraining and advises that the insurer would need to investigate suitable employment and/or training. Dr Kafataris declined to provide an opinion as to what would be considered suitable employment options.
There is no evidence as to potential suitable employment options within the restrictions identified by Dr Kafataris or as to what retraining may be required. The definition of “suitable employment” in s 32A “means employment in work for which the worker is currently suited”. Dr Kafataris’ opinion that the applicant will likely require training is not supportive of the proposition that the applicant is fit to undertake “suitable employment”, that is a real job potentially available in the labour market at large.[15]
[15] Wollongong Nursing Home Pty Ltd v Dewar [2014] NSWWCCPD 55 at [51].
Turning to the matters to be considered under the definition of “suitable employment” in s 32A of the 1987 Act.
(a) Nature of the worker’s incapacity and the details provided in medical information including, but not limited to, any certificate of capacity supplied by the worker: The applicant has significant physical restrictions as well as suffering significant knee pain as a result of his accepted knee injury. He uses two Canadian crutches to mobilise, has combined lifting capacity of 4kg according to Dr Kafataris and 1kg according to the most recent Certificate of Capacity. However, those lifting restrictions only apply when the applicant is not using his crutches at which time his lifting capacity would be minimal. He has very limited standing and walking tolerances and limited to no ability to push, pull, squat or crouch. His sitting tolerance also seems to be affected by his need to change position with even Dr Kafataris accepting that the applicant would need to take breaks. Therefore, on the medical evidence the applicant has an extremely limited physical capacity.
The Certificates of Capacity certify the applicant as having no current capacity for work. Dr Bodel is also of the opinion that the applicant has no current capacity for work. Whilst Dr Kafataris is of the opinion that the applicant has the capacity to perform sedentary duties that is subject to retraining and the identification of suitable job options. Also, Dr Kafataris examined the applicant over a year prior to the commencement of the period for which weekly benefits compensation is claimed.
(b) The worker’s age, education, skills and work experience: The applicant is 56 years of age and for the last 25 years has worked as a truck driver. His skills and experience are therefore narrow in nature and do not involve skills and experience in seated sedentary duties.
(c) Any plan or document prepared as part of the return to work planning process: There is no such plan or document in evidence.
(d) Any occupational rehabilitation services that are being, or have been, provided to or for the worker: There is no evidence of any such services having been provided to the applicant.
The evidence in my view supports that the applicant is not fit for any type of physical duties. The applicant has no experience, at least in the last 25 years, in any occupation other than truck driving. There is no evidence as to the type of sedentary roles which the applicant could perform or as to what retraining would be required.
Taking into consideration the applicant’s age as well as his physical restrictions, right knee pain and lack of skills and experience, I am of the view that there is no work for which the worker is currently suited.
For the above reasons I find that the applicant has no current work capacity as a result of incapacity arising from the accepted work injury.
Section 38 of the 1987 Act
Section 38(2) of the 1987 Act states:
“(2) A worker who is assessed by the insurer as having no current work capacity and likely to continue indefinitely to have no current work capacity is entitled to compensation after the second entitlement period.” [Emphasis added]
In Roberts v University of Sydney [2021] NSWWCC 25 (Roberts) Arbitrator Harris (as he then was) considered the meaning of s 38(2) stating:
“[99] I agree with the applicant’s submission that the meaning of ‘indefinitely’ is akin to an unknown or non-specific period.
[100] I also agree with part of the respondent’s submission that the meaning relates to the ‘foreseeable future’, although the meaning is probably more restrictive than that because the satisfaction of the concept requires incapacity of an indefinite nature rather than just in the foreseeable period.
...
[103] The meaning of ‘indefinitely’ is not the same as ‘definitely’. ‘Indefinitely’ does not mean ‘permanent’, although this was only indirectly suggested by the respondent when it submitted that it meant the same as ‘maximum medical improvement’.”
Member Wynyard adopted the interpretation of Arbitrator Harris in Holmes v Central Coast Council [2022] NSWPIC 70 (Holmes) as did President’s delegate McAdam (as he then was) in Houghton v Jack & Jill Pre-School Association (Lithgow) Incorporated [2023] NSWPIC 36 (Houghton). I also agree with and adopt the interpretation in Roberts.
It is not known when the applicant will have knee surgery. The applicant has also expressed some reluctance in respect to undergoing the surgery. Presuming the surgery is performed there will be a period of recovery and rehabilitation following the surgery. If the surgery is performed there is then a question as to the outcome from the procedure and what duties if any the applicant will be fit to perform.
In my view, assuming that the surgery is to be performed and is successful and ultimately does result in the applicant having some work capacity, the period until this occurs (if it occurs) is “unknown or non-specific” and therefore I am of the view and find that the applicant is “likely to continue indefinitely to have no current work capacity”. There is no evidence that there is likely to be any improvement in the applicant’s condition without the surgery.
Having found that the applicant has no current work capacity as a result of incapacity arising from the accepted work injury and that the applicant is “likely to continue indefinitely to have no current work capacity” I find that the applicant is entitled to compensation pursuant to s 38 of the 1987 Act.
Section 38(6) of the 1987 Act states:
“(6) The weekly payment of compensation to which an injured worker who has no current work capacity is entitled under this section after the second entitlement period is to be at the rate of 80% of the worker’s pre-injury average weekly earnings.”
The parties have agreed the applicant’s PIAWE as at 26 August 2020 at $1,536.80. Applying indexation in accordance with s 82A of the 1987 Act and rounding in accordance with s 82D of the 1987 Act I calculate the applicant’s entitlement weekly compensation pursuant to s 38 of the 1987 Act as follows:
(a) $1,456 from 27 August 2024 to 30 September 2024;
(b) $1,488 from 1 October 2024 to 31 March 2025, and
(c) $1,496 from 1 April 2025 to date and continuing subject to indexation.
SUMMARY
I find that the applicant has no current work capacity as a result of incapacity arising from the accepted work injury.
I find that the applicant is “likely to continue indefinitely to have no current work capacity”.
I find that the applicant is entitled to compensation pursuant to s 38 of the 1987 Act.
The respondent to pay the applicant pursuant to s 38 of the 1987 Act:
(a) $1,456 from 27 August 2024 to 30 September 2024;
(b) $1,488 from 1 October 2024 to 31 March 2025, and
(c) $1,496 from 1 April 2025 to date and continuing subject to indexation.
0
4
0