Headon v Tasco Petroleum - [2022] NSWPIC 644

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
Citation:	Headon v Tasco Petroleum [2022] NSWPIC 644
APPLICANT:	Wayne Headon
RESPONDENT:	Tasco Petroleum
Member:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	21 November 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for lump sum compensation; applicant experienced a sudden onset of thoracic pain while lifting a heavy gate at work; investigations revealed a T5 fracture and plasmacytoma; plasmacytoma weakened the vertebra such that a fracture could have happened spontaneously or with trivial trauma; whether the applicant sustained a compensable injury pursuant to sections 4 and 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Held – the fracture occurred at the applicant’s usual workplace, during normal work hours while applicant engaged in a usual work activity; sudden pathological change occurred “in the course of employment” pursuant to section 4(a) of the 1987 Act; although the plasmacytoma was a substantial if not the main contributing factor to the injury, employment also a substantial contributing factor to the injury; activity being performed at the time of injury involved exertion of substantial force and awkward positioning; although there was a high probability that the fracture would occur at some point, employment was substantial contributing factor to the occurrence of the injury at that point in time; matter remitted to President for referral to a Medical Assessor.
determinations made:	1. The applicant sustained an injury in the course of his employment with the respondent on 3 March 2021 pursuant to s 4(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. The employment concerned was a substantial contributing factor to the injury pursuant to s 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
ORDERS MADE:	3. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment as follows: Date of injury: 3 March 2021 Body part: Thoracic Spine Method: Whole Person Impairment 4. The materials to be referred to the Medical Assessor are to include the Application to Resolve a Dispute and all attachments, the Reply and all attachments and the documents attached to the Application to Admit Late Documents lodged by the respondent on 10 November 2022.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Wayne Headon (the applicant) was employed by Tasco Petroleum (the respondent) as a fuel tanker driver.
On 3 March 2021, the applicant was attempting to open a gate at the yard where his truck was kept when he felt a stabbing sensation followed by immediate pain in his upper back. The applicant took Panadol, had a massage and rested over the weekend. The following week, the applicant tried to return to work when his legs suddenly gave way as he reached down to pick up a hat he had dropped.
The applicant was taken to Griffith Base Hospital and subsequently transferred to St Vincent’s Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a plasmacytoma and fracture at the T5 vertebra.
A claim for compensation was made and, on 16 September 2021, the respondent’s insurer declined liability to pay compensation.
On 31 May 2022, the applicant’s solicitors forwarded…

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 Headon v Tasco Petroleum

Details

AGLC: Headon v Tasco Petroleum [2022] NSWPIC 644
Case: [2022] NSWPIC 644
Decision Date: 21 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Headon v Tasco Petroleum, the applicant sought compensation for a work-related injury under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act). The applicant, while performing a usual work activity involving the lifting of a heavy gate, experienced a sudden onset of thoracic pain, which was later diagnosed as a T5 fracture and plasmacytoma. The plasmacytoma had weakened the vertebra, meaning the fracture could have occurred spontaneously or with minimal trauma. The central issue for determination was whether the applicant’s injury constituted a compensable injury under sections 4 and 9A of the 1987 Act.

The court had to assess whether the fracture happened "in the course of employment" as required by section 4(a) of the 1987 Act. It was established that the fracture occurred during normal work hours at the applicant's usual workplace while engaged in a usual work activity, which pointed towards a compensable injury. The court further considered the substantial contribution of the applicant's employment to the injury, despite the plasmacytoma being a significant contributing factor. The lifting activity involved substantial force and awkward positioning, which were identified as substantial contributing factors to the injury at the specific time it occurred.

The court found that although there was a high probability that the fracture would have occurred eventually due to the plasmacytoma, the employment-related activity was a substantial contributing factor in the timing of the injury. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for further evaluation of the claim. This decision underscores the importance of both the pathological condition and the employment context in determining compensability under the workers compensation framework.

Orders