Judge v Workforce International (Office Services) Pty Ltd - [2023] NSWPIC 440

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Judge v Workforce International (Office Services) Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPIC 440
APPLICANT:	Toby Judge
RESPONDENT:	Workforce International (Office Services) Pty Limited
MEMBER:	Gaius Whiffin
DATE OF DECISION:	1 September 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for a primary psychological injury on 12 November 2018 and a secondary or consequential physical injury to the applicant’s forearms; claim for compensation pursuant to section 66; consideration of applicant’s statements, medical reports and other treatment records, as well as claim correspondence; consideration of whether the applicant is able to aggregate both his physical and psychological impairments, despite section 65A(4), in order for his entitlement pursuant to section 66 in relation to his 12 November 2018 injury to be determined; BIM v Judicial Commission of NSW, Tagicaki v Everwilling Cranes Pty Limited, Bouchmouni v Bakhos Matta t/as Western Red Services, Department of Juvenile Justice v Edmed, Warwar v Speedy Courier (Australia) Pty Limited, Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters subscribing to contract no IH00AAQS v Cross, Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan, Ozcan v Macarthur Disability Services Limited, NSW Police Service v Snape, Abu-Ali v Martin-Brower Australia Pty Limited, Bell v The Mining Pty Limited considered; Held – the applicant is unable to aggregate the impairment found in the Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) of Dr Shen dated 28 April 2023 with the impairment found in the MAC of Dr Burns dated 28 April 2023, due to the operation of section 65A(4) of the Act, in order for his entitlement pursuant to section 66 of the Act in relation to his 12 November 2018 injury to be determined; award in favour of the applicant pursuant to section 66 in accordance with only the MAC of Dr Shen dated 28 April 2023.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant is unable to aggregate the impairment found in the Medical Assessment Certificate of Dr Shen dated 28 April 2023 with the impairment found in the Medical Assessment Certificate of Dr Burns dated 28 April 2023, due to the operation of s 65A(4) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), in order for his entitlement pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act in relation to his 12 November 2018 injury to be determined. The Commission orders: 2. There will be an award in favour of the applicant pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act in the amount of $58,000 with respect to 22% whole person impairment in relation to his 12 November 2018 injury, in accordance with the Medical Assessment Certificate of Dr Shen dated 28 April 2023.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Toby Judge (the applicant) is 42-year-old and commenced employment as an area supervisor on 1 July 2018…

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 Judge v Workforce International (Office Services) 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: [2023] NSWPIC 440
Decision Date: 1 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Judge v Workforce International (Office Services) Pty Ltd, the applicant claimed compensation for a primary psychological injury occurring on 12 November 2018 and a secondary physical injury to the forearms. The dispute was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, which was required to determine whether the applicant could aggregate both his physical and psychological impairments for the purposes of determining his entitlement to compensation under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant could aggregate the psychological and physical impairments, despite the operation of section 65A(4) of the Act. This section generally prevents the aggregation of separate injuries to determine entitlement to compensation. The Tribunal considered various authorities, including BIM v Judicial Commission of NSW, Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority, and others, to understand how the aggregation of impairments is approached in workers compensation claims. The court also considered the medical assessments of Dr Shen and Dr Burns, the claim correspondence, and other treatment records.

After thorough consideration, the Tribunal held that the applicant could not aggregate the impairments found in the Medical Assessment Certificates of Dr Shen and Dr Burns dated 28 April 2023 due to the operation of section 65A(4). Consequently, the Tribunal determined the applicant's entitlement to compensation pursuant to section 66 based solely on the MAC of Dr Shen dated 28 April 2023. The award was made in favour of the applicant accordingly.

Orders