Humuer v Patent Formwork Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 551

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Humuer v Patent Formwork Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 551
APPLICANT:	Diaa Malek Humuer
RESPONDENT:	Patent Formwork Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	15 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim pursuant to section 60 for the costs of proposed lumbar surgery; accepted lumbar injury following a fall at work; dispute as to nature of the injury and its ongoing effect; whether structural pathology or soft tissue injury; abnormal illness behaviour observed by respondent’s experts; Held – treating surgeon’s view as to the nature of the injury preferred; the proposed surgery is reasonably necessary as a result of injury; award for the applicant.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) determines: 1. The L5/S1 posterior lumbar interbody fusion proposed by Associate Professor Ali Ghahreman is reasonably necessary as a result of the injury on 9 February 2023. The Commission orders: 2. The respondent to pay the costs of and incidental to the L5/S1 posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery in accordance with s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the applicable SIRA Fees Order. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Diaa Malek Humuer (the applicant) sustained an injury to his lumbar spine in the course of his employment with Patent Formwork Pty Ltd (the respondent) on 9 February 2023. Liability for the injury was accepted by the respondent’s insurer.
On 14 October 2024, neurosurgeon, Associate Professor Ali Ghahreman wrote to the insurer requesting approval for the applicant to undergo an L5/S1 posterior lumbar interbody fusion.
Liability to pay compensation for the surgery was disputed in a notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 14 March 2025. That decision was maintained following internal review on 13 June 2025.
The present proceedings were commenced by lodgement of an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 1 July 2025. The applicant seeks compensation pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for the costs of and incidental to the surgery proposed by Associate Professor Ghahreman.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The parties appeared for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing on
9 September 2025. The applicant was represented by Mr Craig Tanner of counsel, instructed by Mr Kresimir Kardum. The respondent was represented by Mr John Gaitanis of counsel, instructed by Ms Melissa Cuadros-Lu. A representative from the insurer, Mr Jarred Jordan was also present.
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…

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 Humuer v Patent Formwork Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Humuer v Patent Formwork Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 551
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 551
Decision Date: 15 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Humuer v Patent Formwork Pty Ltd involved a workers' compensation claim brought by the applicant, Mr Humuer, against Patent Formwork Pty Ltd, his employer. Mr Humuer alleged that he had sustained a lumbar injury as a result of a fall at work, necessitating lumbar surgery. The dispute centred on the nature of the injury and its ongoing impact, with the employer arguing that the injury was not work-related and questioning the necessity of the proposed surgery.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Mr Humuer's lumbar injury was a result of his employment, the specific nature of the injury, and whether the proposed lumbar surgery was reasonably necessary as a consequence of that injury. The employer contested the necessity of the surgery, asserting that the injury was not work-related and that Mr Humuer exhibited abnormal illness behaviour.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including expert medical opinions. The treating surgeon's view that the injury was work-related and that the proposed surgery was necessary was preferred over the employer's experts' opinions, which suggested the presence of abnormal illness behaviour. The court found that the injury was indeed work-related and that the proposed lumbar surgery was reasonably necessary. Consequently, the court awarded Mr Humuer compensation for the costs associated with the surgery. The final orders of the court mandated Patent Formwork Pty Ltd to pay the costs of the proposed lumbar surgery to Mr Humuer.

Orders