Lafaitele v Budget Rent-A-Car Operations Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 4

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Lafaitele v Budget Rent-A-Car Operations Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 4
APPLICANT:	John Lafaitele
RESPONDENT:	Budget Rent-A-Car Operations Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Karen Garner
DATE OF DECISION:	7 January 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; application for lump sum permanent impairment compensation pursuant to section 66; applicant had accepted injury to right lower extremity (knee), TEMSKI/scarring and respiratory system (sleep disorder consequential condition); whether the applicant sustained a consequential condition of the left knee and the digestive tract (GORD) as a result the accepted injury to right knee; Held – the applicant sustained a consequential condition of the left knee as a result of the accepted injury to the right knee; applicant did not sustain a consequential condition of the digestive tract as a result of the accepted injury to the right knee; matter remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained a consequential condition of his left knee, as a result of the accepted right knee injury sustained on 7 September 2016. 2. The applicant did not sustain a consequential condition of his digestive tract, as a result of the accepted right knee injury sustained on 7 September 2016. The Commission orders: 3. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment as follows: Date of injury: 7 September 2016 (with consequential condition). Body parts: right lower extremity (knee); TEMSKI/scarring; respiratory system (sleep disorder consequential condition), and left lower extremity (knee consequential condition). Method: whole person impairment. 4. The materials to be referred to the Medical Assessor are to include: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attachments; (b) Reply to Application to Resolve a Dispute and attachments, and (c) the report of Dr Greenberg dated 25 February 2021 (which should correctly have been dated 25 February 2022).

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

John Lafaitele (the applicant) injured his right knee in the course of his employment as a car detailer with Budget Rent-A-Car Operations Pty Ltd (the respondent) on 7 September 2016.
The respondent admitted liability for the applicant’s right knee injury on 7 September 2016 (the accepted right knee injury), consequential scarring and a consequential condition of the applicant’s respiratory system (sleep disorder).
The applicant made a claim for lump sum permanent impairment compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for total 28% whole person impairment (WPI) in respect of injury on 7 September 2016 to the right knee, with consequential scarring and consequential conditions of the applicant’s respiratory system (sleep disorder), left knee and digestive tract.
The respondent disputes liability for the claims of consequential conditions of the left knee and digestive tract.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

At a conciliation conference and arbitration hearing on 26 November 2024, the applicant was represented by Mr Phillip Perry, counsel, instructed by Turner Freeman Lawyers. The respondent was represented by Ms Lyn Goodman, counsel, instructed by…

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 Lafaitele v Budget Rent-A-Car Operations Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Lafaitele v Budget Rent-A-Car Operations Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 4
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 4
Decision Date: 7 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lafaitele v Budget Rent-A-Car Operations Pty Ltd, the applicant, Lafaitele, sought a lump sum permanent impairment compensation under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Lafaitele had previously accepted an injury to his right lower extremity, which included a scar and a sleep disorder as consequential conditions. The dispute centred around whether Lafaitele also sustained a consequential condition of the left knee and the digestive tract (GORD) as a result of the accepted injury to the right knee.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had sustained a consequential condition of the left knee and the digestive tract (GORD) due to the accepted injury to the right knee. The applicant argued that the left knee condition and the digestive tract condition were consequential to the right knee injury, while the respondent contested this claim. The court was required to determine the validity of these claims based on the evidence presented.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that Lafaitele did sustain a consequential condition of the left knee as a result of the accepted injury to the right knee. However, the court found that the applicant did not sustain a consequential condition of the digestive tract as a result of the accepted injury to the right knee. The matter was remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess the appropriate compensation for the accepted conditions.

The court ordered that the matter be referred to a Medical Assessor to determine the appropriate compensation for the accepted conditions of the right lower extremity, TEMSKI scarring, sleep disorder, and the consequential condition of the left knee. The determination of compensation for the digestive tract condition was not to be included in this assessment.

Orders