Mina v Healius Pathology Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 719

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Mina v Healius Pathology Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 719
APPLICANT:	Marissa Mina
RESPONDENT:	Healius Pathology Pty Limited
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	20 December 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation, weekly benefits and medical and related treatment expenses for injury to multiple body parts due to nature and conditions of employment as a data entry operator; degenerative pathology at all body parts; whether aggravation injury pursuant to section 4(b)(ii); whether causal mechanism adequately explained; Held – the applicant sustained injury to her neck, shoulders and wrists; applicant’s onus not discharged in respect of allegation of injury to her lumbar spine; matter remitted for referral to a Medical Assessor; consideration of claim for weekly compensation and medical expenses deferred until receipt of the Medical Assessment Certificate.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Award for the respondent in respect of the allegation of injury to the lumbar spine. 2. The applicant sustained an injury pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 to her cervical spine, bilateral shoulders and bilateral wrists. 3. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment as follows: Date of injury: 19 April 2023 (deemed) Body parts: cervical spine right upper extremity (shoulder, wrist) left upper extremity (shoulder, wrist) Method: whole person impairment. 4. The materials to be referred to the Medical Assessor are to include all of those admitted in the proceedings as indicated in the attached statement of reasons. 5. The matter to be listed for further preliminary conference upon receipt of the medical assessment certificate to deal with the outstanding claims for weekly compensation and incurred medical and related treatment expenses.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ms Marissa Mina (the applicant) commenced employment with Healius Pathology Pty Limited (the respondent) as a data entry operator in 2005.
The applicant claims that she sustained an injury to multiple body parts due to the general nature and conditions of her employment with the respondent.
On 26 March 2024, the applicant made a claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of permanent impairment of her neck, back, both shoulders, both wrists and left knee. The claim relied on an assessment of 22% whole person impairment made by orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Jonathan Herald.
Liability for injury to each of the body parts was disputed in notices issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 31 March 2023, 31 May 2023 and 20 June 2024.
The applicant commenced the present proceedings by lodgement of an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission on 12 August 2024.
The injury described in the Application to Resolve a Dispute was a “personal injury” on 15 December 2022 to the cervical spine, thoracic spine and lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, bilateral pinky…

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 Mina v Healius Pathology 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: [2024] NSWPIC 719
Decision Date: 20 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mina brought a claim against Healius Pathology Pty Ltd for compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Mina alleged she suffered an injury to her neck, shoulders, wrists, and lumbar spine due to the nature and conditions of her employment as a data entry operator. She sought a lump sum compensation, weekly benefits, and reimbursement for medical and related treatment expenses. Healius Pathology contested the claim, arguing that the injuries were not caused by her employment, and that even if they were, the causal mechanism had not been adequately explained. The dispute was heard and determined by the relevant tribunal.

The central legal issues the tribunal needed to resolve were whether Mina's injuries were sustained as a result of her employment and if the causal mechanism had been adequately explained. Additionally, the tribunal had to determine if the injuries amounted to an aggravation of a pre-existing condition as defined in section 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The tribunal also needed to consider whether Mina had discharged her onus of proof in relation to the injury to her lumbar spine.

The tribunal found that Mina had sustained injuries to her neck, shoulders, and wrists due to her employment. However, it was unable to determine if the injury to her lumbar spine was related to her employment, as the applicant had not discharged her onus of proof. The tribunal noted that the causal mechanism for the injuries to her neck, shoulders, and wrists had been adequately explained. Consequently, the tribunal remitted the matter for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the extent of the injuries and their causal relationship to employment. The tribunal deferred consideration of the claim for weekly compensation and medical expenses until receipt of the Medical Assessment Certificate.

The tribunal ordered that the matter be remitted to a Medical Assessor for further assessment of Mina's injuries, specifically focusing on the causal relationship of the injuries to her employment. The tribunal deferred any determination of weekly compensation and medical expenses until the receipt of the Medical Assessment Certificate.

Orders