Leafe v Woolworths Group Limited - [2023] NSWPIC 614

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Leafe v Woolworths Group Limited [2023] NSWPIC 614
APPLICANT:	Justin Leafe
RESPONDENT:	Woolworths Group Ltd
MEMBER:	Christopher Wood
DATE OF DECISION:	15 November 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; application for the cost of bilateral knee surgery pursuant to section 60 in circumstances where the applicant had previously claimed cost of right knee surgery in earlier proceedings before the Commission at a time when need for left knee surgery was already known; earlier proceedings resolved by consent award with respondent to pay for cost of right knee surgery (only) with no reference to or resolution of left knee expenses; evidence in earlier proceedings essentially identical to current proceedings; whether left knee injury consequential to an accepted right knee injury by reason of favouring that knee; whether left knee surgery reasonably necessary and whether Anshun Estoppel principles applied in the circumstances to the current application; Held – award for the respondent; on balance the applicant had failed to discharge his of proof in seeking to establish that his left knee injury was a consequence of the accepted right knee injury.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Award for the respondent; the applicant has failed to establish a consequential injury to the left knee by reason of his accepted right knee injury.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Justin Leafe (the applicant) was employed by Woolworths Group Ltd (the respondent) in April 2011 mostly working as a “Night Captain” and a “Duty Manager”. His role required him to be on his feet for lengthy periods as well as carrying out lifting tasks.
On 24 June 2016, the applicant had a slip and fall, landing heavily on his right knee. He received extensive treatment for his injury which was initially conservative, but he subsequently came to surgery under his treating specialist, Dr Edward Graham. He was able to return to work following surgery but found that by 2019 he couldn’t manage his duties without further aggravating his right knee pain. He took up employment with Traffic Lights New South Wales in a supervisory capacity where he did not have to stand for long periods or complete lifting or bending tasks which he had to carry out with the respondent.
The applicant says that his right knee pain never went away and he had periods of instability which required treatment on a conservative basis from time to time. Eventually it was recommended by Dr Graham that he undergo surgery. The applicant also noticed that he had started to develop pain in his left knee which he says is causally related to his original accident by reason of favouring his right knee ie; he placed added pressure on his left in carrying out tasks both at work and day to day living. Eventually bilateral knee replacement surgery was recommended by Dr Graham.
The respondent rejected his claim for the costs of knee surgery and the applicant commenced proceedings W5341/22 (earlier proceedings) in the Personal Injury Commission…

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 Leafe v Woolworths Group Limited

Details

AGLC: Leafe v Woolworths Group Limited [2023] NSWPIC 614
Case: [2023] NSWPIC 614
Decision Date: 15 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Leafe v Woolworths Group Limited involved the applicant, Leafe, seeking the cost of bilateral knee surgery from the respondent, Woolworths Group Limited, under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Leafe had previously claimed the cost of right knee surgery from Woolworths in earlier proceedings before the Commission. At that time, Leafe was already aware of the need for left knee surgery. The earlier proceedings were resolved by a consent award, where Woolworths agreed to pay for the cost of the right knee surgery only, with no reference to or resolution of the left knee expenses. The evidence in the earlier proceedings was essentially identical to the current proceedings. The central legal issues were whether Leafe's left knee injury was a consequence of the accepted right knee injury by reason of favouring that knee, whether the left knee surgery was reasonably necessary, and whether Anshun estoppel principles applied to the current application.

The court determined that Leafe had failed to discharge his burden of proof in establishing that his left knee injury was a consequence of the accepted right knee injury. The court found that the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate a causal link between the two injuries. Additionally, the court concluded that Anshun estoppel principles applied in the circumstances, thereby preventing Leafe from relitigating the issue of the left knee surgery cost. The court held in favour of Woolworths Group Limited, denying the applicant's claim for the cost of the left knee surgery.

In conclusion, the court's decision in Leafe v Woolworths Group Limited underscores the importance of establishing a causal link between injuries for workers' compensation claims. The application of Anshun estoppel principles further reinforced the court's ruling against the applicant, thereby ensuring consistency and finality in the resolution of workers' compensation disputes.

Orders