| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | ||||||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | ||||||
| CITATION: | Menzies Property Services Pty Ltd v Murialdo [2009] NSWWCCPD 162 | |||||
| APPELLANT: | Menzies Property Services Pty Ltd | |||||
| RESPONDENT: | Gonzalo Rodrigo Murialdo | |||||
| INSURER: | GIO General Limited | |||||
| FILE NUMBER: | A1-4978/09 | |||||
| ARBITRATOR: | Mr B McManamey | |||||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 1 September 2009 | |||||
| DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: | 16 December 2009 | |||||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 22 December 2009 | |||||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Injury; substantial contributing factor; causation | |||||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Deputy President Bill Roche | |||||
| HEARING: | Oral | |||||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Mr J Harris, instructed by TurksLegal | ||||
| Respondent: | Mr B Batchelor, instructed by Frisina Lawyers | |||||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | For the reasons given in this decision, the Arbitrator’s determination of 1 September 2009 is confirmed. | |||||
| The appellant employer is to pay the respondent worker’s costs of the appeal. Those costs are assessed at $2,200.00 plus GST. | ||||||
BACKGROUND
The worker, Mr Murialdo, worked as a cleaner for the appellant, Menzies Property Services Pty Ltd (‘Menzies’), during two separate periods. The first was from July 2002 until April 2004 when he left to attend the New South Wales Police Academy. Having graduated from the Academy in December 2004, Mr Murialdo worked as a probationary constable until he left the police force in about March 2005. In or about April 2005, Mr Murialdo returned to work with Menzies as a cleaner working two shifts per day. The first shift was from 5.00 am to 9.00 am and the second was from 2.30 pm until 6.30 pm.
Mr Murialdo alleges that he injured his back on the morning of Friday 14 September 2007 when he lifted a trolley full of rubbish into a skip and felt a sharp pain in his lower back. His father, Huber Murialdo, who also worked as a cleaner with Menzies, and who was working about five metres away from his son, offered to empty the trolley.
Mr Murialdo alleges that he then walked to the cleaners’ room where he spoke with another cleaner, Ana Quintana, and mentioned his back pain. Later that day he attended on his usual doctor, Dr Chatterjee, general practitioner at Leumeah. Dr Chatterjee’s notes are in evidence, however, the exact content of the notes is the subject of dispute that is discussed in detail later in this decision.
Dr Chatterjee provided Mr Murialdo with a non-WorkCover certificate declaring him unfit until 21 September 2007 because of “contusion low back”. Mr Murialdo returned to work and continued his normal duties.
In May 2008, Mr Murialdo’s pain increased and spread to his groin and left buttock. Dr Chatterjee referred him to a spinal specialist, Dr Etherington, who gave him steroid injections. He continued his normal duties until 25 August 2008 when he reduced his hours to four per day on modified duties. That work continued until he ceased work on 2 September 2008 and he has not returned to work since. Subsequent investigations revealed Mr Murialdo to have an L4/5 disc protrusion.
Menzies’ workers compensation insurer, GIO General Limited (‘GIO’),…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Menzies Property Services Pty Ltd v Murialdo 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] NSWWCCPD 162
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether Menzies could be held liable for the injury suffered by Murialdo, specifically whether the injury was caused by Menzies's breach of duty, and if so, whether Menzies was substantially contributing to the injury. The court had to examine whether Menzies could have reasonably taken steps to prevent the injury and whether Murialdo's actions also contributed significantly to the incident.
The Fair Work Commission found that Menzies had breached its duty of care by not providing adequate safety equipment and training, which substantially contributed to Murialdo's injury. The court held that Menzies's failure to provide a safe working environment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The court also noted that while Murialdo's actions played a role, Menzies's breach was the primary cause. Consequently, the Arbitrator's determination was confirmed, holding Menzies liable for the injury.
The final orders of the Fair Work Commission upheld the Arbitrator's decision, confirming that Menzies Property Services Pty Ltd was liable for the injury sustained by Murialdo, and that Menzies was substantially contributing to the injury. The decision underscored the importance of employers providing a safe working environment and adhering to their duty of care towards employees.
Orders
Orders of the court
For the reasons given in this decision, the Arbitrator’s determination of 1 September 2009 is confirmed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.