Jones v Hillside Brae Pty Ltd - [2023] NSWPIC 559

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Jones v Hillside Brae Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPIC 559
APPLICANT:	Natalie Jones
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Hillside Brae Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Michael Wright
DATE OF DECISION:	23 October 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for lump sum compensation for injury to cervical spine and right shoulder; right shoulder injury and causation disputed; consideration of Mason v Demasi, Davis v Council of the City of Wagga Wagga, and Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates; Held – right shoulder injury resulted from subject injury; matter referred to Medical Assessor.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Pursuant to s 4(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), the applicant sustained injury to the right upper extremity as a result of injury on 18 June 2019. Pursuant to s 9A of the 1987 Act, employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury to the right upper extremity. 2. Matter remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor (MA) pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 Act (the 1998 Act) for assessment as follows: a. Date of injury: 18 June 2019 – personal injury b. Body systems / parts: i. cervical spine ii. right upper extremity. c. Method of assessment: whole person impairment. 3. The documents to be reviewed by the MA are: a. Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, and b. Application to Admit Late Documents dated 16 August 2023 and attached documents, being the Reply and attached documents.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

In an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), Natalie Jones (the applicant) claimed lump sum compensation in respect of the cervical spine and right upper extremity as a result of injury on 18 June 2019 in the course of her employment with Hillside Brae Pty Ltd (the respondent).
In a dispute notice dated 8 November 2022, pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), the respondent disputed liability for the claim for the right upper extremity. Injury to the cervical spine was not disputed.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

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 reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
At the conciliation/arbitration hearing of this matter on 19 September 2022, the applicant was represented by Mr Grant of counsel, instructed by Mr Ryan, solicitor, and the respondent by Mr Hart of counsel, instructed by Ms Davis, solicitor.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:
(a) ARD and attached documents,…

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 Jones v Hillside Brae Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Jones v Hillside Brae Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPIC 559
Case: [2023] NSWPIC 559
Decision Date: 23 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jones v Hillside Brae Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Jones, sought a lump sum compensation for injuries to his cervical spine and right shoulder, which he alleged were caused by a workplace incident. The defendant, Hillside Brae Pty Ltd, disputed the extent of the injuries and their causation. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the injuries to Jones' cervical spine and right shoulder were a result of the incident in question and whether the injuries warranted the compensation sought. The court considered the applicable principles set out in Mason v Demasi, Davis v Council of the City of Wagga Wagga, and Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, focusing on the causation of the injuries and the assessment of the appropriate compensation.

The court held that the injury to Jones' cervical spine was a result of the subject injury, while the causation of the right shoulder injury was more contentious. Ultimately, the court found that the right shoulder injury was also related to the incident and, thus, compensable. In light of this finding, the matter was referred to a Medical Assessor to determine the appropriate lump sum compensation for the injuries sustained.

The court did not make a final order on the compensation amount but referred the matter to a Medical Assessor for further evaluation. This decision ensures that the plaintiff's entitlement to compensation is assessed based on the severity and impact of the injuries, with due consideration of the medical evidence presented.

Orders