Nabbe v Skilled Workforce Solutions (NSW) Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 404

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Nabbe v Skilled Workforce Solutions (NSW) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 404
APPLICANT:	Wayne Nabbe
RESPONDENT:	Skilled Workforce Solutions (NSW) Pty Limited
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	13 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION -Workers Compensation Act 1987; consequential condition; claim for permanent impairment compensation; whether applicant suffered a consequential cervical spine condition as a result of an accepted right shoulder injury; Held – the existence of a consequential condition is a question of causation and must be determined after a commonsense evaluation of the causal chain; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates followed; an injured worker need not establish the presence of pathological change consistent with a section 4 injury in order to establish a consequential condition; Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, Moon v Conmah Pty Ltd, and Australian traineeship System v Turner referred to; award for the respondent on the claimed consequential condition; as the impairment in relation to the accepted right shoulder injury does not exceed the relevant section 66 threshold there will be an award for the respondent on the claim for permanent impairment compensation.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffered an injury to his right upper extremity (shoulder) in the course of his employment with the respondent on 25 April 2004. 2. Award for the respondent on the claim for consequential condition to the cervical spine. 3. Award for the respondent on the claim for permanent impairment compensation. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On ANZAC Day 2004, Wayne Nabbe (the applicant) was working as a picker and packer for the respondent, Skilled Workforce Solutions Pty Limited at the Dairy Farmer's factory in Bomaderry, New South Wales.
In the course of his employment, the applicant was required to move crates of milk which were stacked six high in a cold room. He would then carry the crates to a location where a forklift driver would pick them up and place them onto the back of a semi-trailer. The crates of milk weighed approximately 20kg and the applicant was tasked with moving well over 100 crates on any given day.
On the date of injury, the applicant was in the process of grabbing a crate of milk which was stacked six high, and as he was holding the crate overhead with both arms and began to lower it, he lost control and in doing so experienced sharp pain in his right shoulder.
The applicant's right shoulder injury is admitted. He brings a claim for permanent impairment compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). The applicant also claims that as a consequence of his accepted right shoulder injury, he has developed a consequential condition to his cervical spine.
The alleged consequential condition to the neck is disputed, and the parties also agree the applicant's permanent impairment arising from his accepted right shoulder injury does not…

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 Nabbe v Skilled Workforce Solutions (NSW) 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: [2025] NSWPIC 404
Decision Date: 13 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nabbe commenced proceedings in the Workers Compensation Magistrate’s Court seeking to establish that he suffered a consequential cervical spine condition as a result of an accepted right shoulder injury. The dispute was dismissed by the Magistrate and on appeal, the matter was determined by the NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Nabbe suffered a consequential cervical spine condition as a result of an accepted right shoulder injury. The Tribunal considered whether the existence of a consequential condition was a question of causation to be determined by a commonsense evaluation of the causal chain. The Tribunal referred to a number of cases in determining that an injured worker need not establish the presence of pathological change consistent with a section 4 injury in order to establish a consequential condition. The Tribunal held that Nabbe did not suffer a consequential cervical spine condition as a result of the accepted right shoulder injury. The Tribunal also held that the impairment in relation to the accepted right shoulder injury did not exceed the relevant section 66 threshold. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal made an award in favour of the respondent on the claim for permanent impairment compensation. The Tribunal held that there was no causal connection between the accepted injury and any alleged cervical spine condition. The commonsense evaluation of the causal chain did not support the existence of a consequential condition. Nabbe was not required to demonstrate pathological change consistent with a section 4 injury. The award was made on the basis that the impairment in relation to the accepted right shoulder injury did not exceed the relevant section 66 threshold.

Orders