Ilijoska v Cormack Packaging Mfg Pty Ltd - [2021] NSWPIC 109

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Ilijoska v Cormack Packaging MFG Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 109
APPLICANT:	Nada Ilijoska
RESPONDENT:	Cormack Packaging MFG Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Ms Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	6 May 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Claim for further lump sum compensation under section 66 of the 1987 Act; accepted orthopaedic injuries; whether applicant sustained consequential hypertension and diabetes conditions as a result of injury; whether significant weight gain; inconsistent histories regarding onset of conditions; Held-consequential conditions accepted; matter remitted to President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess the degree of further permanent impairment.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant sustained consequential hypertension and diabetes conditions as a result of the injury to her left shoulder, cervical spine and lumbar spine due to the nature and conditions of her employment with the respondent until 5 August 2009. 2. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess the degree of further permanent impairment as follows: Date of injury: Nature and conditions of employment until 5 August 2009 Body parts/systems: Lumbar spine Cardiovascular system (Hypertension) Endocrine system (Diabetes) Method: Whole Person Impairment. 3. 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 Applications to Admit Late Documents lodged by the applicant on 9 April 2021 and by the respondent on 20 April 2021.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ms Nada Ilijoska (the applicant) was employed by Cormack Packaging MFG Pty Ltd (the respondent) as a process worker. The applicant claims that as a result of the nature and conditions of her employment with the respondent from 1993 until 5 August 2009 she sustained injury to multiple body parts.
In previous proceedings before the former Workers Compensation Commission, the applicant was awarded lump compensation in relation to the injury pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for 14% whole person impairment (WPI) of her cervical spine and left upper extremity (shoulder) in accordance with a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued by Approved Medical Specialist Dr J Dixon Hughes. Dr Dixon Hughes assessed the applicant as having 0% WPI of her lumbar spine and upper and lower digestive tracts as a result of the injury.
The present proceedings were commenced in the former Workers Compensation Commission on 11 February 2021 and now come before the Workers Compensation Division of the Personal Injury Commission by operation of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020, from 1 March 2021.
The applicant seeks further lump sum compensation under s 66 of the 1987 Act in respect of the lumbar spine injury as well as consequential hypertension and diabetes conditions. Liability for the injury to the lumbar spine is not disputed. The consequential conditions were, however, disputed in notices issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 13 January…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ilijoska v Cormack Packaging Mfg Pty Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWPIC 109
Decision Date: 6 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a claim by Mr Ilijoska against Cormack Packaging Manufacturing Pty Ltd for additional compensation under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Mr Ilijoska sought recognition that his orthopaedic injuries had resulted in consequential hypertension and diabetes, as well as significant weight gain, warranting further lump sum compensation. The primary dispute centred on whether these conditions were directly attributable to the injuries sustained during his employment.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve were whether the consequential conditions of hypertension and diabetes were indeed a result of the accepted orthopaedic injuries and whether there was significant weight gain that warranted additional compensation. The court also needed to address the inconsistencies in Mr Ilijoska's accounts regarding the onset of these conditions. This required a detailed examination of the medical evidence and the credibility of Mr Ilijoska's claims.

The court found that the consequential conditions of hypertension and diabetes were accepted as compensable, but the matter required further assessment to determine the degree of permanent impairment attributable to these conditions. The inconsistencies in Mr Ilijoska's history regarding the onset of these conditions were noted, but the court emphasised that the primary issue was the extent to which these conditions were linked to the initial orthopaedic injuries. The matter was remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the degree of further permanent impairment. The court did not make a final determination on the amount of compensation but set the stage for a more detailed assessment.

Orders