Maik v Woolworths Group Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 532

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Maik v Woolworths Group Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 532
APPLICANT:	Mosis Maik
RESPONDENT:	Woolworths Group Limited
MEMBER:	Karen Garner
DATE OF DECISION:	8 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for medical expenses pursuant to section 60 for surgery, costs of and incidental to right sided L5/S1 microdiscectomy, including pain and associated medication, and post-operative physiotherapy including hydrotherapy once per week for six months; applicant had accepted injury to lumbar spine; whether the surgery was reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted injury; Held – the surgery was reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted injury; the respondent to pay the applicant’s medical expenses in respect of the surgery and treatment pursuant to section 60.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. Surgery, being right sided L5/S1 microdiscectomy requested by Dr Andrew Kam, is reasonably necessary as a result of the injury pursuant to ss 59 and 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). The Personal Injury Commission orders: 2. The respondent to pay the costs claimed by the applicant, being costs of and incidental to right sided L5/S1 microdiscectomy, including pain and associated medication and post-operative physiotherapy including hydrotherapy once per week for six months, pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

It is not in dispute that Mosis Maik (the applicant), currently aged 38 years, sustained injury to his back (the injury) on 2 March 2023 in the course of his employment with Woolworths Group Limited (the respondent).
On or about 11 March 2024, on behalf of the applicant, Dr Andrew Kam made a request for surgery, being right sided L5/S1 microdiscectomy (the surgery).
The respondent’s insurer declined the request on the ground that it disputed that the surgery is reasonably necessary as a result of the injury as required by s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The applicant initiated proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) by Application to Resolve a Dispute filed on 18 July 2025, which sought an order pursuant to
s 60 of the 1987 Act for future medical expenses of and related to the surgery, including pain and associated medication and post-operative physiotherapy including hydrotherapy once per week for six months.
At a conciliation and arbitration hearing on 18 September 2025, the applicant was represented by Mr Ty Hickey, counsel, instructed by MBT Lawyers. The respondent was represented by Ms Kavita Balendra, counsel, instructed by Turks Legal.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity…

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 Maik v Woolworths Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Maik v Woolworths Group Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 532
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 532
Decision Date: 8 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court involved a claim by the applicant, Maik, against the respondent, Woolworths Group Ltd, for medical expenses pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Maik sought reimbursement for a right-sided L5/S1 microdiscectomy, associated costs, pain and associated medication, and post-operative physiotherapy including hydrotherapy once per week for six months. The dispute centred around whether the surgery was reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted injury to Maik's lumbar spine.

The court was required to determine if the medical procedures and treatments claimed were reasonably necessary due to the injury that Maik had accepted. This involved an assessment of whether the surgery and subsequent treatments were appropriate and necessary based on the nature and extent of the injury. The court had to evaluate the necessity of the medical interventions in light of the injury accepted by Maik and the medical evidence provided.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court concluded that the surgery and subsequent treatments were reasonably necessary as a result of the injury. The court found that the medical interventions were appropriate and required in addressing the consequences of the injury to Maik's lumbar spine. Consequently, the court ordered that Woolworths Group Ltd was to pay the applicant's medical expenses in respect of the surgery and treatment as claimed under section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders