Marshall v Royal Freemasons' Benevolent Institution - [2025] NSWPIC 493

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Marshall v Royal Freemasons' Benevolent Institution [2025] NSWPIC 493
APPLICANT:	Roma Marshall
RESPONDENT:	Royal Freemasons' Benevolent Institution
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	23 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for medical expenses; whether the applicant suffered injury to her hips in an accepted work-related fall; applicant suffered an accepted lumbar spine injury in a fall from a chair at work; there is no issue she suffered a lumbar spine injury in that fall; the applicant claims the costs of past and future treatment to not only the lumbar spine but also her bilateral hips, and for a right ankle/Achilles tendon strain (consequential); no issue was taken with any of the treatment modalities claimed; the dispute centred on the presence of any alleged injury and/or consequential condition; Held – having regard to the totality of the lay and medical evidence the applicant suffered bilateral hip injuries in the fall at issue; the applicant has not discharged her onus of proof in establishing her Achilles tendon/ankle strain occurred as a consequence of her injury; the respondent is ordered to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses in connection with her lumbar spine and hip injuries; award for the respondent on the claimed consequential condition to the right ankle/Achilles tendon.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) determines: 1. The applicant suffered injury to her lumbar spine and bilateral hips in the course of her employment with the respondent on 11 August 2020. 2. Award for the respondent on the claim for consequential condition to the right ankle/Achilles tendon. 3. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary past and future medical and treatment expenses in relation to her lumbar spine and bilateral hips. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 11 August 2020, the applicant, Roma Marshall, suffered injury when she slipped from a chair whilst in the course of her employment with Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution (the respondent) and landed heavily on her buttocks.
There is no issue the applicant suffered an injury to her lumbar spine in the fall at issue. She brings a claim for the payment of reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses in relation to both her lumbar spine and bilateral hips, which she also alleges were injured in the fall at issue. The respondent denies any hip injuries occurred in the relevant fall and also denies liability for an alleged consequential condition to the applicant’s right ankle/ Achilles tendon.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the applicant suffered a bilateral hip injury in the fall at issue, and
(b) whether the applicant suffered a consequential condition to her right ankle/ Achilles tendon as a result of her work injury.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application…

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 Marshall v Royal Freemasons' Benevolent Institution 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 493
Decision Date: 23 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Marshall v Royal Freemasons' Benevolent Institution, the applicant sought reimbursement for medical expenses incurred from injuries she claimed to have suffered during a work-related fall. The applicant, who had previously suffered a lumbar spine injury in a fall from a chair at work, sought compensation for the costs associated with past and future treatment for her lumbar spine, as well as for her bilateral hips and a right ankle/Achilles tendon strain. The respondent contested the claim, arguing that the applicant had not suffered injuries to her hips or ankle/Achilles tendon as a result of the work-related incident.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had suffered injuries to her hips and a right ankle/Achilles tendon strain as a consequence of the work-related fall. The court was required to consider the totality of the evidence provided, including both lay and medical testimony, in order to determine whether the applicant had discharged her burden of proof in establishing the presence of these injuries and their causation. The court also needed to determine whether the treatment modalities claimed by the applicant were reasonably necessary.

The court concluded that, based on the evidence presented, the applicant had indeed suffered bilateral hip injuries in the fall at issue. However, the court found that the applicant had not discharged her onus of proof in establishing that her Achilles tendon/ankle strain occurred as a consequence of her injury. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses in connection with her lumbar spine and hip injuries. The court awarded the respondent on the claim for the consequential condition to the right ankle/Achilles tendon.

Orders