Hockman v Laudet Pty Ltd t/as Rydges Central Hotel - [2021] NSWPIC 28

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Hockman v Laudet Pty Ltd t/as Rydges Central Hotel [2021] NSWPIC 28
APPLICANT:	Rikki Hockman
RESPONDENT:	Laudet Pty Ltd t/as Rydges Central Hotel
MEMBER:	Ms Catherine McDonald
DATE OF DECISION:	17 March 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Worker suffered an injury lifting tables and claimed a short closed period of compensation; claim denied on the basis that she did not suffer injury, relying on CCTV footage and statements which were not relied on; consistent complaints from date of injury and agreement between treating doctors of location of injury; Held- award for weekly compensation and section 60 expenses.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Pursuant to s 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation at the rate of $873.31 from 8 February 2016 to 4 April 2016. 2. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant’s s 60 expenses.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Rikki Hockam was employed by Laudet Pty Ltd t/as Rydges Central Hotel (Rydges) as a Food and Beverage Supervisor. She alleges that she suffered an injury to her left upper chest and shoulder girdle on 8 February 2016.
Ms Hockam claims compensation for a seven week period plus medical expenses of $5,000.
Rydges disputes that she suffered an injury.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) was amended at a telephone conference on 6 January 2021 to add the claim for s 60 expenses.
The matter was listed for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing by telephone on 5 February 2021 when Ms Goodman of counsel appeared for Mr Hockam and Mr Robison of counsel appeared for Rydges.

The matter was unable to conclude in the time available because considerable time was taken up in negotiations and in a dispute about evidence . Mr Robison therefore made his submissions in writing and Ms Goodman prepared written submissions in reply.
I was told that the annexures to Rydges’ insurer’s dispute notice were attached to the ARD because the practice direction then in force required that they be included. Ms Goodman told me that Ms Hockam did not rely on the CCTV footage, Dr Rimmer’s report dated 5 February 2020 and some pages from a report of Procare dated 22 March 2016 which summarised the content of the report.
Rydges’ solicitor served the whole report of Procare on the day of the conciliation conference and arbitration hearing. I declined leave to rely on the report because of the prejudice occasioned by the late service of statements, which had not previously been provided to Ms Hockam and her representatives.
Rydges also served a report by Dr M Ryan dated 8 March 2016 for the first time on that day which is discussed below.
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 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 taken into account in making this determination:

(a) ARD and attached documents;
(b) Reply,

(c) Wages schedule prepared for Ms Hockam and provided on the day of the conciliation conference and arbitration hearing.

Ms Hockam said in her statement dated 24 November 2020 that she suffered injury about 8.00pm on 8 February 2016 when she was moving a table. She felt pain in her left upper chest and reported it to her supervisor, Nick Shaw. She completed her shift but later in the shift told another worker, Amy McGregor, that she was in a lot of pain then rang her mother. Because she was in pain she asked Mr Shaw if she could work in the poker machine area. She reported the injury to him about 20 to 30 minutes later. She drove home and spoke to her parents when she arrived.
Ms Hockam described the treatment she underwent. She said that the treatment prescribed by Dr Creswick and described below was effective.
Ms Hockam said that she had two falls at home, one around 13 March and one a week later as a result of her reaction to Gabapentin.
In response to matters raised in the decision notice, Ms Hockam denied that the condition was due to sleeping in a chair when visiting her then boyfriend in hospital and stressed that she was not there overnight. She denied that the CCTV footage was of the relevant time and said that the appropriate footage would show her holding her arm for most of the evening.
I deal with other aspects of Ms Hockam’s statement below, after discussing the events on which she commented.
Ms Hockam’s mother, Debbie provided a statement in 2019. She said that on 8 February 2016, Ms Hockam phoned her about 8.00 pm in tears, saying that her chest was really sore and that she had hurt her shoulder moving a table. On the following day, Ms Hockam was still in pain so her mother drove her to the physiotherapist at Putney.
Ms Hockam’s father provided a similar statement.

Medical and other evidence

Ms Hockam saw Mr M Ghaly, physiotherapist, on 9 February 2016. His findings are summarised below. She saw Dr C Wong on 12 February 2016 who provided a certificate of capacity. There are no notes or detailed reports from Dr Wong.
Ms Hockam said that they physiotherapy treatment made her worse and that the physiotherapist referred her to Dr Wong.
On 14 February 2016 Ms Hockam went to the Emergency Department of Royal North Shore Hospital (RNSH). Her presenting complaints were noted as shortness of breath and uncontrolled pain following a left shoulder injury at work lifting a heavy table. She was awaiting the report of an ultrasound and an MRI scan was booked for the following Wednesday. On examination, the doctor observed an obvious swelling over the anterior chest and “the outer quadrant of the pec major.” The ultrasound was reviewed by a radiologist who said that the interpretation was difficult given the quality of the film but there was a likely incomplete tear of the “pec major.” Ms Hockam’s background history of hereditary angioedema and “?seizure activities – not epilepsy, not on regular antiepileptic medication.”
She said that Dr Wong referred her to Dr D Sher, a shoulder specialist, whom she saw on 15 and 19 February 2016. Dr Sher arranged x-rays of her shoulder and told her that “the problem was elsewhere.”
Ms Hockam completed a claim form on 17 February 2016 in which she said that she had strained her shoulder lifting plates on 6 February 2016 then on 8 February 2016 she lifted tables and felt a pop in her chest then severe pain in her chest, shoulder and ribs.
On 22 February 2016 A/Prof M Cusi, sport and exercise medicine physician, reported to Dr Sher. He noted the two dates of injury in the claim form. A/Prof Cusi said that in the previous week the pain Ms Hockam’s pectoralis major area had settled but continued to be painful. He noted tenderness over the pectoralis minor though pain radiating down her arm to the radial aspect of the forearm and into the first three fingers had also improved. A/Prof Cusi said that the neurological examination was normal but there was muscle spasm over the paravertebral gutters, suprascapular area, upper trapezius and the whole of the scapular girdle including the pectoralis major and minor. He said that there was no appreciable discrete injury and that Ms Hockam’s symptoms would progressively improve with rest.
Rydges insurer declined to accept provisional liability in a letter dated 26 February 2016 on the basis that it had insufficient medical information and there was evidence that work was not a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The evidence referred to was not disclosed.
Ms Hockam saw A/Prof Cusi again on 29 February 2016 when he said that she had made definite improvements in her symptoms but continued to have swelling of the anterior pectoralis major and spasm over her scapular girdle.
On 3 March 2016 Mr Ghaly wrote a report to Dr Wong, following a review. He set out his understanding of the history and that Ms Hockam was lifting a table at waist height when she felt an instant pop in her chest cavity and pain that radiated through her chest into her left “shoulder scapula.” The pain increased, her ability to breathe deeply was decreased and he was unable to lift her shoulder and arm. She presented with discolouration on the following day. Mr Ghaly set out his observations and said that it was obvious that her left shoulder was 10 cm higher than the right and had “increased rotations of the thoracic along with sacro-iliac dysfunction on the left.” He considered that she may have subluxed the costal cartilage at her third left rib. Mr Ghaly began treatment on 2 March 2016with manual therapy, soft tissue releases and taping.
On 5 March 2016 Ms Hockam went to RNSH with left shoulder and chest pain associated with nausea. Musculoskeletal pain with a possible neuropathic component was diagnosed and Gabapentin was prescribed. The notes recorded that Ms Hockam had presented with similar symptoms three weeks before. The notes again refer to angioedema and “?seizure activities” and contain a substantial list of medications which Ms Hockam is unable to take because they exacerbate angioedema.
On 8 March 2016, Ms Hockam saw A/Prof M Ryan at the request Rydges’ insurer. His first report was not provided to the Commission and it was not served on Ms Hockam’s representatives until the day of the hearing.
On the same day she was referred to the Rapid Access TIA and Neurology Service at North Shore Private Hospital. The provisional diagnosis in the referral form was “suspected cervical spine radiculopathy, severe pain, hyperaesthesia in C6 dermatome for 4 weeks, winging of scapula. Significant pain despite Targin 10/5, gabapentin 100mg.”
An MRI scan of the cervical spine on 9 March 2016 showed no abnormality.
On 13 March 2016 Ms Hockam presented to RNSH with “seizures” and the doctor noted the recent presentation for left shoulder and chest pain. She had suffered two seizures the previous night and four on that day. The history in relation to left shoulder and chest pain was that she had undergone an out-patient MRI and seen an orthopaedic surgeon by whom she was discharged because no abnormality was detected on MRI. She was referred to sports physiotherapy for a shooting pain around the chest and axilla which radiated to her left arm. Opioid analgesia had minimally relieved pain. The impression recorded was psuedoseizure and “acute on chronic pain worse with cervical radiculopathy.”
A/Prof Ryan prepared a report for Rydges' insurer on 23 March 2016. He said that based on his examination on 8 March, he considered that Ms Hockam may have “something seriously wrong possibly unrelated to her index injury.” He read the factual report by Procare and the discharge summary from RNSH. He noted that the seizures were classified as pseudoseizures meaning they were factitious and psychologically based. He said there was no haematological or biochemical abnormality to suggest infection or malignancy. The only abnormality he observed was genuine winging of the left scapula.
A/Prof Ryan said that there was a considerable discrepancy between the absence of abnormality on investigation and the severity of Ms Hockam’s symptoms, which is consistent with the intrusion of non-physical factors and an element of pain behaviour. With respect to the need for treatment, A/Prof Ryan said:
“On the basis of a single consultation that was extremely limited in its ambit because of Ms Hockam's presentation at that time, there is a paucity of clinical information upon which I can rely directly.
It is reasonable to conclude, however, that Ms Hockam' s condition will need to be managed carefully. I would expect it would comprise of physical and psychological components.
It is likely that she will require the assistance of a specialist in pain management with cognitive behavioural therapy and perhaps psychological or psychiatric support.”
On 14 March 2016 A/Prof M Creswick of the Sydney Physical Medicine Centre reported to Dr Wong. He also had a history that the complaint began on 6 February 2016 when Ms Hockam was stacking plates and her shoulder felt painful and stiff but quickly settled. Two days later while moving tables she felt a pop in her chest wall with pain in the mid pectoral region radiating down her arm to her first, second and third fingers. She developed neck pain that night was also aware of a tender pump high in her left pectoral region and developed pain and spasm over her left shoulder above the scapula and at the base of the neck, involving the left interscapular area. Ms Hockam’s left shoulder movement, left pectoral pain and paraesthesia had improved by the time of A/Prof Creswick’s examination but she continued to have pain in her “left more than right” suboccipital region and interscapular and superscapular pain. A/Prof Creswick noted Ms Hockam’s medical history and a list of medications that she did not take. He noted that she was taking Valium and Endone.
A/Prof Creswick set out his examination findings and his review of the radiology which was all reported as normal. He said:
“I suspect there may have been a minor tear of the left pectoralis major muscle, painful spasm of shoulder girdle muscle, particularly the left pectoralis minor which is the likely source of symptoms in the left upper limb. Left levator scapulae muscle spasm and probable myofascial trigger points are almost certainly the source of left supra-scapula and inter-scapular pain. Prominence of the lateral masses of C2 and C3 on the right is probably a consequence of lateral flexion and rotation of the cervical spine by the left levator scapulae muscle which is in spasm and very shortened. The levator scapulae and upper borders of trapezius fibres are restricting neck motion and the upper borders of trapezius where I found evidence of trigger points are the likely source of bilateral suboccipital pain. Differential diagnosis includes left thoracic outlet syndrome due to left pectoralis minor spasm or brachial neuritis.”
A/Prof Creswick mobilised Ms Hockam’s cervical spine and used “gentle manual techniques” to relax her neck musculature. He injected local anaesthetic into trigger points then used manual techniques to relax and lengthen left and right levator scapulae muscles and the trapezius then used vapour coolant spray and post isometric relaxation technique stretches to the left sternoclavicular mastoid and left scalenus medius muscles. He prescribed exercises. He noted in a post script to his report that Dr Wong had informed him that Ms Hockam had marked improvement by 17 March.
A/Prof Creswick did not mention Ms Hockam’s presentation at hospital on the night before the consultation.
Ms Hockam saw A/Prof Creswick again on 24 March 2016 and her pain levels had reduced substantially. He repeated the treatment to her neck and dorsal neck musculature. He mobilised her neck at C3 and injected trigger points again. He considered that the pectoralis muscle may be contributing to mild thoracic outlet syndrome. On this occasion he also mobilised the T5 segment and left fifth rib. He again recommended exercises. He proposed to advise her on a planned return to work in two weeks’ time.
On 20 May 2016, Rydges’ insurer served a notice under the former s 74 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), disputing liability. It relied on a factual investigation report, the contents of which it summarised and reports of A/Prof M Ryan dated 23 March 2016 and 27 April 2016. The notice provided a series of statements disputing liability then summarised the reports attached.
On 7 April 2016 A/Prof Creswick recorded that Ms Hockam had an initial exacerbation of left pectoral and arm symptoms after treat which lasted three days and caused her to the Emergency Department of Sydney Adventist Hospital. Her pain levels had settled and become very mild. A/Prof Creswick again injected resolving trigger points in the left pectorialis minor and major muscles and recommended exercises. He also recommended that Ms Hockam return to selected duties.
On 8 April 2016 Dr Wong prepared a certificate for Rydges’ insurer stating that when Ms Hockam saw A/Prof Ryan on 8 March 2016 she was feeling unwell because of the Gabapentin recently prescribed, which caused somnolence, ataxia and poor co-ordination. She also felt fatigued from recent seizures.
A/Prof Creswick reviewed Ms Hockam on 22 April after she had experienced an exacerbation of symptoms. He repeated injections of trigger points and noted that Ms Hockam was looking forward to returning to work.
A/Prof Ryan provided a further supplementary report dated 27 April 2016 having reviewed the CCTV footage. He said that Ms Hockam did not appear to have suffered an injury and was not protective of her left arm.
Rydges’ insurer reviewed and confirmed its decision in March 2020 after a request from Ms Hockam. With that request, Ms Hockam relied on a report from Dr S Khan dated 22 January 2019. He set out a history consistent with that set out above though he noted that after taking the Gabapentin tablets, Ms Hockam’s legs became swollen and she saw Dr L Berglund, immunologist who diagnosed the swelling as a side effect of Gabapentin. He said that an ultrasound revealed a tear in the pectoral muscles.
Dr Khan noted that the report of an ultrasound of the chest wall on 12 February 2016 read:
“Clinical history: Heavy lifting five days ago, pain across left anterior chest wall, ?pectoralis muscle tear.
Findings: The anterior chest wall has been examined. There is no focal muscle abnormality demonstrated and in particular the pectoralis muscles appear intact. No masses or collections are identified. No significant abnormalities are identified on this study.”
Dr Khan noted that a series of MRI scans did not reveal a pectoral tear or any other abnormality. Despite that, his diagnosis was:

“Soft tissue injury to the chest wall and rib cage on the left side.
Muscular tear and contusion of the pectoralis muscles on the left side of the chest.
Musculoligamentous strain of the left shoulder girdle.
Musculoligamentous strain of the cervicothoracic spine.”

He considered that Ms Hockam would have been fit for work in accordance with the certificates of capacity and that the medical treatment undertaken was reasonably necessary. He said that she did not suffer any permanent impairment.
Dr S Rimmer, orthopaedic surgeon, reported to Rydges’ solicitors on 5 February 2020. I was told that Rydges’ insurer had been unable to obtain an appointment with A/Prof Ryan during a period when Ms Hockam was visiting Australia while living in the United Kingdom. There was therefore no objection to reliance on a report by a second orthopaedic surgeon.
Dr Rimmer noted that by the time of his examination, Ms Hockam had made a complete recovery and that she was working in a family business in the United Kingdom. Dr Rimmer noted that A/Prof Ryan had seen the CCTV footage which he did not and said that in conjunction with A/Prof Ryan’s report, he did not consider that work was a substantial contributing factor to the injury.
I have reviewed the CCTV footage which covers a period around 7.30 pm when someone whom I understand to be Ms Hockam moved a table. It does not suggest that she suffered an injury at about that time. A further period later in the evening shows Ms Hockam completing paperwork leaning on the bar and using her left arm, apparently normally.
The amount relied on as pre-injury average weekly earnings was $919.27 and there is no evidence to the contrary. 95% of that amount is $873.31. The whole of the claim falls within the first entitlement period.

SUBMISSIONS

Ms Goodman’s submissions were recorded and a recording is available to the parties. Ms Goodman took me through the evidence in the file. She said that Ms Hockam did not rely on any injury on 6 February 2016.
With respect to the CCTV footage, Ms Goodman said it is not clear what A/Prof Ryan saw and his report is not helpful. With respect to his description of Ms Hockam’s presentation at hospital on 13 March, Ms Goodman argued that he is not a psychiatrist and that I should have no regard to his opinion that the seizures were factitious. A/Prof Ryan referred to
A/Prof Creswick’s report who had observed abnormalities of posture which he treated. In any event, Ms Goodman submitted, the fact that a worker exhibits pain behaviour does not mean that they are not entitled to compensation.
Mr Robison’s written submissions form part of the Commission’s file. He said that the evidence showed that no injury occurred as alleged and that the mechanism of injury was improbable. He noted that the second period of CCTV footage did not show Ms Hockam holding her shoulder. He submitted that the statements from Ms Hockam’s parents did not advance her case.
With respect to the medical evidence, Mr Robison relied on Dr Rimmer’s report. With respect to A/Prof Ryan’s report, he said that the underlying factual assumptions remain correct – that Ms Hockam was a young woman who moved a table in a bar and kept working until the end of her shift. Mr Robison said that A/Prof Ryan was qualified to say that the objective physical presentation confirmed radiologically did not demonstrate a physical injury. He noted that a psuedoseizure results from a psychological cause and it is open to an orthopaedic surgeon to say that it did not arise from an orthopaedic cause.
Mr Robison noted that Dr Khan did not obtain a history of any symptoms and considered the imaging which is not consistent with any pathology. Nonetheless he made a diagnosis which was not based on any reasoning.
Mr Robison said that the absence of A/Prof Ryan’s report dated 8 March 2016 was seemingly due to a clerical error. An application was made to tender the report in the submissions but it was not provided. He said that no adverse inference could arise because it was not withheld from tender. In summary, Mr Robison said that liability was denied, that Ms Hockam has not discharged her onus to persuade the Commission to find in her favour and that the mechanism of injury was nonsensical so that there should be an award in favour of Rydges.
In written submissions in reply, Ms Goodman noted that Rydges chose not to rely on statements from witnesses present at the time of the injury and that, in the absence of cross examination, her evidence should be accepted and that there is no evidence before the Commission that the mechanism of injury was improbable. She said that Ms Hockam said that the injury occurred at about 8 pm and the first part of the CCTV footage was taken about 7.30 pm.
In response to the suggestion that Ms Hockam had little treatment because there was no injury, Ms Goodman noted that the claim was for a closed period between 8 February and 26 March 2016 and that her statement set out the treatment she had. Both A/Prof Creswick and A/Prof Ryan noted that Ms Hockam had winging of her scapula and even Dr Rimmer conceded that she had a minor musculoskeletal strain. His diagnosis that Ms Hockam had a strain of the left pectoral muscle was consistent with that of A/Prof Creswick who diagnosed a minor tear of the same muscle. A/Prof Creswick attributed the winging of the scapula to muscle spasm. Ms Goodman said that Ms Hockam had discharged her onus of proving that she suffered an injury.
Ms Goodman’s submissions close the period of the claim at 26 March 2016 though the ARD claims payments until 4 April 2016.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

The outcome of this case is substantially influenced by a series of forensic decisions made by Rydges’ insurer, coupled with what appear to be some administrative errors. The claim concerns a very short closed period roughly five years before the hearing. The cost to the scheme in defending the litigation is likely to be roughly the same as the value of the claim.
Ms Hockam made a claim soon after her injury. While the CCTV footage does not show an injury or its aftermath, Ms Hockam described its occurrence and her parents support her statement by describing her condition when she arrived home.
Provisional liability was not accepted but the letter dated 26 February 2016 merely says that further reports are required. It did not explain the basis for the insurer’s statement that there is evidence that employment was not a substantial contributing factor to the injury and nothing has been served which suggests that there was a reasonable excuse for not commencing payments at the time. The submission that Ms Hockam’s parents’ statements were unnecessary makes little sense in light of that letter. The statements were obtained because there was a dispute that an injury had occurred.
It is clear that on the day after the injury, Ms Hockam commenced to undergo treatment which was consistent with the injury having been suffered. She saw Mr Ghaly on the following day and was referred to Dr Wong. She went to the Emergency Department of RNSH within a week of the injury.
There are no reports of investigations in the file and no detailed reports from Drs Wong and Sher. Despite that, there is a continuum of treatment within a short time frame and all of the practitioners whose reports are in the file accept the mechanism of injury.

Ms Hockam’s complaints remained consistent throughout the treatment and there is consistency in the medical opinions as to the anatomical location of the injury.
A/Prof Cusi identified the pectoral muscles as the source of pain. He anticipated improvement.
A/Prof Creswick treated the pectoral area and suspected a minor tear of the pectoralis major. An ultrasound which did not show a tear is referred to only in Dr Khan’s report and the notes from her first attendance at RNSH.
Dr Khan’s report is of little assistance and his diagnoses are not supported by his report. He saw Ms Hockam long after she had recovered from the condition.
Dr Rimmer who saw Ms Hockam in February 2020, long after she had recovered accepted that she may have suffered a pectoral muscle strain.
Ms Hockam went to RNSH and was prescribed Gabapentin to which she had an adverse reaction. A/Prof Ryan saw her at that time for Rydges’ insurer. His first report is not in evidence though there is evidence that Ms Hockam went to North Shore Private Hospital for investigations on the same day. That is consistent with A/Prof Ryan’s statement in his report dated 23 March 2016 that he was concerned she may have a serious but possibly unrelated condition.
A/Prof Ryan said in his second report that he was dependent on a limited physical examination and little clinical information. Instead of asking A/Prof Ryan to see Ms Hockam after the reaction to Gabapentin was treated, Rydges’ insurer provided him with a factual investigation report and other documents. He relied on the results of his examination, on a day when it appears that Ms Hockam’s presentation was unusual, to form the view that there was no physical or pathological explanation for the discrepancy between the injury and her presentation. Nonetheless, he observed genuine winging of her left scapula. That is, he observed a physical sign in the area complained of as the site of injury. He relied heavily on notes from RNSH diagnosing pseudoseizures. As Ms Goodman pointed out, the presence of pain behaviour does not mean that no injury was suffered.
In failing to ask A/Prof Ryan to see Ms Hockam again, Rydges’ insurer failed to provide him with a fair climate in which to express his opinion.
Rydges’ insurer relied on A/Prof Ryan’s reports and the results of a factual investigation. For reasons which are entirely unexplained, the whole of the report was not served with the dispute notice. The suggestion that Ms Hockam suffered pain because she slept in a chair is not supported by any evidence because the statements accompanying the factual investigation were not served until it was far too late for Ms Hockam to meet them and was not the subject of any medical evidence.
The summary in the dispute notice refers to injury having occurred at 7.30. The only CCTV footage obtained was for a period around 7.30 pm. Ms Hockam said in her claim form that the injury occurred around 8.00 pm. There is no explanation why there is no footage for that time or whether it was investigated. It might be expected that Ms Hockam would move tables for patrons many times over the course of a shift as a food and beverage supervisor.
I accept that there is a discrepancy between Ms Hockam’s description of the impact of the injury over the course of the shift and the second period of CCTV footage. However, the footage is short and not particularly clear. Because of the consistent complaints from the following day, I am not persuaded by the CCTV footage that Ms Hockam was not favouring her arm over the remainder of the shift.

There is little information regarding Ms Hockam’s pre-existing conditions and no imaging reports or reports from some of the doctors who have treated her. Some of the symptoms are puzzling and the role of the pseudoseizures is not explained by anyone other than A/Prof Ryan.
However, Ms Hockam’s complaints were consistent from the date of the injury, she underwent treatment and she recovered in a short time frame. I accept that she suffered an injury to her left pectoral muscles on 8 February 2016 and that she was totally incapacitated for work as a result for a closed period. She does not allege that she has any ongoing disability as a result of the injury.

I therefore make an award of weekly compensation and for medical expenses. There is some discrepancy in the period claimed, the claim in the ARD commencing on the day of the injury. As Ms Hockam completed her shift, she was presumably paid for that day. The date on which the claim is closed in Ms Goodman’s submissions is before than in the ARD. I have made an order in respect of the longest period and I grant liberty to apply if the parties are unable to agree on the correct dates.
I order Rydges to pay Ms Hockam weekly compensation of $873.31 (being 95% of pre-injury average weekly earnings of $917.27) from 8 February 2016 to 4 April 2016. I order Rydges to pay her s 60 expenses.

Catherine McDonald
MEMBER

17 March 2021