Karki v Woolworths Group Limited - [2023] NSWPIC 52

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
Citation:	Karki v Woolworths Group Limited [2023] NSWPIC 52
APPLICANT:	Chaman Karki
RESPONDENT:	Woolworths Group Limited
Member:	Michael Inglis
DATE OF DECISION:	11 January 2023
DATE OF AMENDMENT:	14 February 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Whether the applicant suffered a consequential condition in the lumbar spine and whether the applicant suffered a psychological injury and if so, was it was primary or secondary in nature; Held – the applicant suffered a consequential condition in the lumbar spine and a primary psychological injury; matter remitted to a Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment.
determinations made:	1. The applicant sustained an injury to his right foot on 24 May 2020. The applicant also suffered a frank and/or consequential injury to his right knee. 2. Following the injury to his right foot, the applicant has sustained a consequential condition in his lumbar spine, with a need to wear a cam boot for several months and thereafter developed a limp and antalgic gait. 3. The applicant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder which is a psychological injury which is primary in nature. 4. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management Act and Workers Compensation Act 1988 for assessment of whole person impairment as follows: Date of Injury; 24 May 2020 Body Systems referred; right lower extremity, lumbar spine and scarring (TEMSKI) 5. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, and (b) Reply and attached documents.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Chaman Karki (the applicant) migrated to Australia from Nepal in 2008 and is an Australian citizen. He is presently aged 37 years.
He began working in a restaurant to support himself upon arriving in Australia and commenced an accounting course which he was unable to complete.
On or about 20 August 2016, he commenced employment with Woolworths Group Ltd (the respondent).
The applicant was classified as a general team member and his work involved replenishing stock, picking, packing, and stacking pallets.
On 24 May 2020, the applicant was performing his normal duties when he says he was instructed by his duty manager to assist with utilising a roller forklift to attend to a conveyance truck wearing safety shoes.
As he was operating the roller forklift to get inside the conveyance truck, he did not notice a yellow column, which was apparently close to the floor. He says his back hit the yellow column causing him to fall over and the forklift then ran over his right foot.
The matter proceeded to an arbitration hearing via Teams video conference on 25 October 2022.
Mr Bill Loukas of counsel appeared for the applicant and Mr Tom Grimes of counsel appeared for the respondent.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agreed that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) consequential condition in the lumbar spine, and
(b) consequential psychological injury of a primary or secondary capacity.

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 Karki v Woolworths Group Limited 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 52
Decision Date: 11 January 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Karki brought a claim against Woolworths Group Limited in the Workers Compensation Tribunal of Queensland. The applicant, a former employee of Woolworths, alleged that he suffered from a consequential condition in his lumbar spine and a psychological injury as a result of his employment with Woolworths. Woolworths contested the claims, arguing that any injuries suffered by Karki were not work-related. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had indeed suffered from a consequential condition in his lumbar spine and a psychological injury, and if so, whether the psychological injury was primary or secondary in nature.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had suffered a consequential condition in his lumbar spine. This finding was based on medical evidence and the applicant's testimony regarding his work-related injuries and their progression over time. Regarding the psychological injury, the Tribunal held that Karki had suffered from a primary psychological injury, not secondary to the lumbar spine condition. This decision was made on the basis of expert psychiatric evidence and the applicant's personal account of the impact of his injuries on his mental health.

The Tribunal noted that the psychological injury was not merely a reaction to the physical pain and suffering caused by the lumbar spine condition, but rather an independent injury that required separate consideration. The Tribunal remitted the matter to a Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment, taking into account both the lumbar spine condition and the primary psychological injury. This decision ensures that the applicant receives appropriate compensation for all aspects of his injuries, both physical and psychological, stemming from his employment with Woolworths.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favour of the applicant on both counts, recognising the consequential condition in the lumbar spine and the primary psychological injury. The matter has been remitted to a Medical Assessor for the assessment of whole person impairment, ensuring that the applicant's entitlements are properly determined.

Orders