Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Grigor

[2017] NSWWCCPD 23

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:	Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Grigor [2017] NSWWCCPD 23
APPELLANT:	Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:	John Grigor
INSURER:	Self Insured
FILE NUMBER:	A1-3480/16
ARBITRATOR:	Mr R Bell
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:	12 December 2016
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	18 May 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:	Section 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; nature of a ‘general order’ pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Michael Snell
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:	Leigh Virtue & Associates
Respondent:	Somerville Laundry Lomax
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The monetary thresholds in s 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 have not been met and there is no right of appeal.

INTRODUCTION

1. John Grigor (the respondent) established before an Arbitrator that he suffered injury to his lumbar spine on 18 March 2014, in the course of his employment with Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd (the appellant), and that s 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) was satisfied. The Arbitrator found that, although the respondent suffered from partial incapacity from 24 April 2014, there was no ‘economic incapacity’ in the period during which weekly compensation was claimed, and “nil entitlement to weekly compensation”. The Arbitrator ordered that the appellant pay the respondent’s expenses pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act, “on production of accounts/receipts”.

2. The appeal challenges the findings on ‘injury’, s 9A, incapacity and whether there was a requirement for treatment as a result of the found injury. The appeal raises threshold issues pursuant to s 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act).

BACKGROUND

1. The respondent was employed by the appellant at a chicken farm at Byron Bay. His normal duties were those of a storeman. The appellant pleaded an injury to his lower back on 18 March 2014, when he was sent to work in the boning room, which was not his normal role. He alleged the injury occurred when he was “lifting a heavy tub of chicken pieces”, or alternatively that he suffered injury by way of the “aggravation, exacerbation and/or acceleration of a disease condition”. He returned to his usual role in the store, but was subsequently moved to the boning room permanently from 22 April 2014. He went off work from 24 April 2014, he stated due to low back pain. He went on leave from 24 April 2014, and his employment was terminated on 9 June 2014. He has not worked subsequently.

2. The appellant declined the respondent’s claim for workers compensation benefits, denying ‘injury’, the satisfaction of s 9A of the 1987 Act, incapacity and whether the respondent had required treatment in relation to a work related injury.

THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS AND DECISION

1. The Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) was registered on 6 July 2016, and heard at an arbitration hearing at…