Murray v Katz Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 519

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Murray v Katz Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 519
APPLICANT:	Debra Murray
RESPONDENT:	Katz Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Michael Wright
DATE OF DECISION:	30 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; claim for lump sum compensation for undisputed lower back injury in 2019 and anosmia condition arising from subsequent disputed consequential fall in 2021 said to result from earlier back injury; Kooragang Cement Ltd v Bates considered; Held – 2021 fall resulted from 2019 back injury; referred to Medical Assessor.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) determines: 1. The applicant suffered head injury and anosmia on 24 July 2021, as a result of injury to her lower back on 28 November 2019. 2. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for assessment as follows: (a) date of injury: 28 November 2019 – personal injury; (b) body systems/parts: (i) lumbar spine, and (ii) ear, nose, throat and related structures, and (c) method: whole person impairment. 3. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, and (b) Reply and attached documents. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 28 November 2019, Debra Murray (the applicant) sustained injury to her lumbar spine in the course of her employment with Katz Pty Ltd (the respondent).
On 24 July 2021, the applicant sustained head injury and anosmia condition as a result of a fall while on a family outing while moving into her “Winnebago” or recreational vehicle or motorhome. The applicant stated that this fall was the result of a lumbar spine nerve spasm. The respondent disputed this allegation.
The applicant claimed lump sum compensation for permanent impairment of the lumbar spine and anosmia condition.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

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 to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
At the conciliation/arbitration hearing of this matter the applicant was represented by
Mr Adhikary of counsel, and the respondent by Mr Tanner of counsel.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and considered in making this determination:
(a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, and
(b) Reply and attached documents.

Oral evidence

There was no oral evidence.

Evidence

The applicant provided statements dated 30 March 2024 and 11 July 2024. These statements were relevantly to the effect that on 24 July 2021, following lumbar spine…

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 Murray v Katz Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Murray v Katz Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 519
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 519
Decision Date: 30 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Murray, the plaintiff, and Katz Pty Ltd, the defendant. The dispute centred around a claim for lump sum compensation for a lower back injury Murray sustained in 2019, and an anosmia condition that allegedly resulted from a consequential fall in 2021, which Murray argued was linked to the 2019 injury. The matter was heard in the Industrial Court of New South Wales. The core legal issue was whether the 2021 fall was a consequence of the 2019 back injury, and if so, whether Murray was entitled to compensation for the anosmia condition.

In addressing the issue, the court considered the precedent set by Kooragang Cement Ltd v Bates, which established the principles for determining causation in workers' compensation claims. The court meticulously examined the medical evidence and expert opinions to determine if there was a direct link between the 2019 back injury and the 2021 fall. After thorough analysis, the court concluded that the 2021 fall did indeed result from the 2019 back injury. This finding was pivotal in establishing Murray's entitlement to compensation for the subsequent anosmia condition. Given the complexity of the medical evidence and the need for further detailed assessment, the court decided to refer the matter to a Medical Assessor for a comprehensive evaluation.

The court's determination was that the 2021 fall was a direct consequence of the 2019 back injury. As a result, Murray's claim for compensation in respect of the anosmia condition arising from the 2021 fall was upheld. The matter was referred to a Medical Assessor to determine the quantum of compensation to be awarded.

Orders