Littlefield v Leading Edge Maintenance Services - [2024] NSWPIC 120

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Littlefield v Leading Edge Maintenance Services [2024] NSWPIC 120
APPLICANT:	Benjamin Littlefield
RESPONDENT:	Leading Edge Maintenance Services
MEMBER:	Jill Toohey
DATE OF DECISION:	12 March 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation, weekly payments and section 60 treatment expenses; applicant had accepted injury to lumbar spine; injury to thoracic spine agreed at hearing; agreed award for the respondent in claim for injury to the left hip; by consent injury to lumbar and thoracic spine referred to Medical Assessor; claim for weekly payments discontinued; remaining issue in dispute whether treatment with medicinal cannabis reasonably necessary; no dispute applicant had severe pain following injury and continuing pain following surgery; no dispute he had been able to reduce and then cease use of addictive opioid medication; criteria in Diab v NRMA and Couch v Electus Distribution considered; Held – finding that proposed treatment is reasonably necessary.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	By and with consent of the parties: 1. As previously accepted, the applicant suffered injury to his lumbar spine arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent on 14 July 2017. 2. The claim for weekly compensation is discontinued and the requirement to file a notice of the election to discontinue is dispensed with. 3. Award for the applicant in the claim for injury to the thoracic spine. 4. Award for the respondent in the claim for injury to the left hip. 5. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998 for assessment of the applicant’s whole person impairment as follows: (a) Date of injury: 14 July 2017 (b) Body systems/parts to be assessed: (i) thoracic spine, and (ii) lumbar spine. (c) The documents to be referred to the Medical Assessor are: (i) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attachments, and (ii) Reply and attachments. The Commission determines: 6. Treatment with cannabis oil is reasonably necessary as a result of the applicant’s injury.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Benjamin Littlefield, the applicant, was working as a maintenance officer for Leading Edge Maintenance Services, the respondent, on 14 July 2017 when he lifted a bed weighing approximately 100kg and felt sharp pain in his back. The respondent accepted liability for injury to his lumbar spine and paid weekly compensation for 260 weeks to 6 July 2022.
By dispute notices issued on 27 July 2020, 10 August 2021 and 20 September 2023, the respondent disputed Mr Littlefield’s claim that he had suffered injury to his cervical spine, thoracic spine and left hip. The respondent also disputed his claim for treatment by way of surgery to his lumbar spine and for cannabinoid treatment, and his claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment.
On 31 October 2023, Mr Littlefield commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) claiming weekly payments from 7 July 2022 and continuing, lump sum compensation for…

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 Littlefield v Leading Edge Maintenance Services 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: [2024] NSWPIC 120
Decision Date: 12 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Littlefield, the applicant, sought lump sum compensation, weekly payments, and treatment expenses under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 from Leading Edge Maintenance Services, the respondent. The central issue was whether treatment with medicinal cannabis was reasonably necessary for the applicant, who had sustained injuries to his lumbar and thoracic spine, as well as his left hip. The parties agreed that the applicant had accepted the lumbar spine injury, and the thoracic spine injury was agreed upon during the hearing. The award for the left hip injury was agreed upon by consent. The applicant had managed to reduce and cease using addictive opioid medication following the injury and surgery, attributing this to the use of medicinal cannabis. The only remaining issue was whether this treatment was reasonably necessary.

The court considered the criteria set out in Diab v NRMA and Couch v Electus Distribution to determine if the proposed treatment was reasonably necessary. The applicant had suffered severe pain following the injury and continued to experience pain after surgery. There was no dispute that the applicant had been able to reduce and then cease the use of addictive opioid medication. The court found that the treatment with medicinal cannabis was reasonably necessary given the circumstances. The court was satisfied that the applicant's use of medicinal cannabis had a therapeutic benefit in managing his pain, particularly in reducing his reliance on addictive opioid medication.

The court held that the proposed treatment with medicinal cannabis was reasonably necessary. Consequently, the applicant's claim for weekly payments was discontinued, and the issue of treatment expenses remained for further determination. The court's decision was based on the applicant's need for reasonable and necessary treatment to manage his pain effectively and reduce his dependency on addictive medications. The applicant's condition and the therapeutic benefits of the proposed treatment were key factors in the court's reasoning.

Orders