Moore v Australian Native Landscapes Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 131

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Moore v Australian Native Landscapes Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 131
APPLICANT:	Norman Moore
RESPONDENT:	Australian Native Landscapes Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Jill Toohey
DATE OF DECISION:	19 March 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Applicant suffered accepted abdominal injury in the course of his employment as a truck driver; urgent laparotomy performed; mesenteric bleeding; incidental finding of neuroendocrine tumour during surgery; ileostomy performed; applicant developed problems with the ileostomy; proposed reversal treatment; whether the proposed treatment causally related to the accepted injury; Held – finding that the proposed treatment is not causally related to the injury; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained abdominal injury on 20 December 2021 arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent. 2. The proposed treatment is not reasonably necessary as a result of the injury sustained by the applicant. 3. Award for the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Norman Moore, the applicant, was employed as a truck driver for Australian Native Landscapes Pty Ltd, the respondent, on 20 December 2021 when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The steering wheel of his truck struck hit him in the abdomen and pinned him to his seat. An ambulance attended. He was given morphine for severe pain in his abdomen and he was taken to Campbelltown Hospital.
Mr Moore underwent urgent surgery at Campbelltown Hospital. A trauma laparotomy was performed and he was found to have mesenteric bleeding. In the course of the procedure to deal with the bleeding, Mr Moore was found to have a metastatic carcinoid tumour. He had not previously been aware of its presence. An ileostomy was formed in order to deal with the neuroendocrine tumour. Approximately 13cm of his bowel was resected and the ileocolic junction was removed together with the superior mesenteric artery. The wound was packed to stem the mesenteric bleeding and was left open. It was closed two days later after a “relook laparotomy” confirmed the bleeding had stopped.
The respondent accepted liability for Mr Moore’s abdominal injury.
Mr Moore has experienced ongoing problems with the ileostomy including leakage and irritation of the skin surrounding the stoma. Surgeon Dr Dean Yeh proposes treatment to reverse the laparotomy and the stoma so as to deal with these problems. There is no dispute that this is reasonable treatment for his condition.
By dispute notices issued on 13 September 2023 and 27 December 2023, the respondent disputed Mr Moore’s claim in respect of the proposed treatment.
The respondent accepts that the proposed treatment is reasonably necessary for Mr Moore’s condition but disputes any causal connection to his accepted injury.
By proceedings commenced in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on
17 January 2024, Mr Moore seeks payment of the cost of the treatment proposed by Dr Yeh.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the issue remaining in dispute is whether the treatment proposed by Dr Yeh is reasonably necessary as a result of Mr…

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 Moore v Australian Native Landscapes 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 131
Decision Date: 19 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Moore v Australian Native Landscapes Pty Ltd involved a claim for workers' compensation by the applicant, Moore, who suffered an abdominal injury while working as a truck driver for the respondent. During surgery to address the injury, a neuroendocrine tumour was discovered, and an ileostomy was subsequently performed. Moore later experienced complications with the ileostomy and proposed a reversal treatment, which the respondent disputed as causally related to the original injury. The matter was brought before the court to determine the validity of Moore's claim for compensation in relation to the proposed treatment.

The court had to decide whether the complications Moore experienced with the ileostomy and the proposed reversal treatment were causally related to the abdominal injury sustained in the course of employment. The central issue was whether the complications and the treatment proposed were consequences of the initial injury or were unrelated conditions that arose independently. This required an analysis of medical evidence and expert opinions to ascertain the causal link between the accepted injury and the proposed treatment.

The court examined the medical evidence and expert opinions presented. It found that the complications experienced by Moore and the proposed treatment were not causally related to the initial abdominal injury. The court relied on the medical evidence that the complications were due to factors unrelated to the original injury. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the respondent, holding that the proposed treatment was not causally related to the accepted injury, and thus, Moore's claim for compensation in relation to the treatment was not substantiated.

The court's decision resulted in an award for the respondent, dismissing Moore's claim for compensation regarding the proposed treatment. The court's findings were based on the lack of a causal link between the accepted injury and the complications experienced by Moore. The court upheld the respondent's position that the proposed treatment was not a consequence of the initial injury, leading to the dismissal of Moore's claim.

Orders