Mackinney v The Executive Inn Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 451

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Mackinney v The Executive Inn Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 451
APPLICANT:	Margaret Therese Mackinney
RESPONDENT:	The Executive Inn Pty Limited
MEMBER:	Adam Halstead
DATE OF DECISION:	2 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation; assessment of whole person impairment (WPI); nature of injury; section 4(a); undisputed applicant worker injured her lower back at work; later diagnosis of sacroiliac joints injury; issue whether sacroiliac joints also injured at time of lower back injury; respondent employer contends age-related degeneration; Held – sacroiliac joint injury most likely occurred at time of lower back injury; remitted to President for referral to Medical Assessor for WPI assessment of lower back and sacroiliac joint injuries.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant injured her sacroiliac joints at work on 7 July 2020. 2. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor, to be appointed by the President, for whole person impairment assessment of the lumbar spine and sacroiliac joints arising from injury on 7 July 2020. 3. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attachment of 45 pages; (b) Reply and attachment of 105 pages; (c) Application to Lodge Additional Documents (applicant) dated 18 June 2025 and attachment of 85 pages, and (d) this Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

While working as a housekeeper, the applicant, Margaret Therese Mackinney, injured her lower back when making up a fold-out bed on 7 July 2020. The workplace incident was reported at the time, she received medical treatment, was paid weekly compensation and has not returned to work. The applicant submitted a claim for lump sum compensation on
8 January 2025 in relation to her lower back, including for sacroiliac joint injury. The respondent, The Executive Inn Pty Limited, disputes sacroiliac joint injury. The applicant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) at the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 12 May 2025, that initiated these proceedings.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The matter first came before the Commission for preliminary conference on 17 June 2025; procedural directions were made. The Commission convened for arbitration hearing on
17 July 2025. Mr Hickey of counsel, instructed by Mr Bechelli from Whitelaw McDonald Lawyers, appeared for the applicant, who was present. The respondent was represented by Mr Jones of counsel, instructed by Mr Van der Hout from BBW Lawyers, and a delegate of its insurer was also in attendance.
The ARD was amended by consent, and with the leave of the Commission, at the commencement of the hearing to include injury to the sacroiliac joints.
I am satisfied the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I endeavoured to bring the parties to the dispute…

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 Mackinney v The Executive Inn 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: [2025] NSWPIC 451
Decision Date: 2 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this matter, Ms. Mackinney, sought a lump sum compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 from the respondent, The Executive Inn Pty Ltd, following an injury sustained at work. The primary issue before the court was whether the injury to her sacroiliac joints occurred at the same time as her lower back injury or if it was a result of age-related degeneration.

The court had to determine if the sacroiliac joints injury was a consequence of the workplace incident or a separate, unrelated condition. The employer argued that the sacroiliac joints injury was due to natural degeneration rather than the workplace incident. The applicant, however, contended that the sacroiliac joints injury was a result of the same incident that caused her lower back injury.

The court found that the sacroiliac joints injury was most likely to have occurred at the same time as the lower back injury. The reasoning behind this decision hinged on the medical evidence presented, which indicated that the sacroiliac joints injury was consistent with the workplace incident. The court held that the applicant’s claim should be remitted to the President for further assessment of the whole person impairment (WPI) of both the lower back and sacroiliac joint injuries. The court’s decision underscored the need for a comprehensive assessment of all injuries potentially related to the workplace incident to ensure appropriate compensation.

Orders