Norouzi v Philip Leong Stores Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 52

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Norouzi v Philip Leong Stores Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 52
APPLICANT:	Mohammad Norouzi
RESPONDENT:	Philip Leong Stores Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
DATE OF DECISION:	18 February 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; medical expenses; claim for future treatment (posterior lumbar decompression); respondent had lodged additional forensic medical report in breach of clause 44 of the Workers Compensation Regulation2016; report admitted for the purposes of history; respondent addressed submissions to observations made on examination; those did not constitute matters of history per Waldron v Agrimac International Pty Limited; whether treatment reasonably necessary; Diab v NRMA Ltd; Held – proposed treatment reasonably necessary.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The respondent pay the applicant’s medical expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 associated with the posterior lumbar decompression 1 Level L4-5 as recommended by Dr Diwan plus reasonably necessary ancillary costs. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The matter in dispute in this case is a relatively straightforward one, of the type that the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) sees regularly and will often resolve via consent. Mr Norouzi is in significant amounts of pain, has had a specific treatment recommended by his treating team, and that treatment has been disputed.
The respondent’s position in this case appears to have been taken on the basis of a few different issues, but primarily Mr Norouzi’s presentation before an independent medical expert, who took a dim view of the reliability of Mr Norouzi.
Mr Norouzi suffered an injury to his lumbar spine on 15 June 2021. Liability for that injury has been accepted, and the respondent continues to pay weekly compensation benefits to Mr Norouzi. Mr Norouzi’s dispute in the Commission concerns a request for lumbar decompression surgery at the L4/5 level as recommended by his treating orthopaedic surgeon (amongst others).

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the surgery recommended by Dr Ashish Diwan, being a posterior lumbar decompression 1 level L4/5 is reasonably necessary pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
It is noted and agreed that there is no dispute as to injury, and no dispute that the need for surgery arises as a result of the injury suffered by Mr Norouzi in the course of his employment with the respondent.

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. The parties undertook brief discussions about resolving the matter, but no resolution was forthcoming.
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…

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 Norouzi v Philip Leong Stores 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 52
Decision Date: 18 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Norouzi versus Philip Leong Stores Pty Ltd, the dispute arose from a claim for future medical treatment under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The plaintiff, Norouzi, sought compensation for posterior lumbar decompression, which the defendant, Philip Leong Stores Pty Ltd, opposed. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which was tasked with determining the legitimacy of the claim and the admissibility of certain evidence.

The court faced two primary legal issues: whether the defendant's submission of an additional forensic medical report complied with clause 44 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016, and whether the proposed future treatment was reasonably necessary. The court examined the procedural breach by the defendant and the substantive merits of the claim. Regarding the procedural breach, the court considered the observations made during the examination and whether they constituted matters of history as per the precedent set in Waldron v Agrimac International Pty Limited. For the substantive issue, the court assessed the necessity of the proposed treatment using the criteria established in Diab v NRMA Ltd.

The court found that the defendant's report was admitted for the purposes of history, despite the procedural breach, as the observations made during the examination did not pertain to matters of history. Consequently, the court ruled that the proposed treatment was reasonably necessary based on the evidence presented. The decision was grounded on the necessity of the treatment and its alignment with the statutory provisions and judicial precedents. The court's ruling affirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to compensation for the proposed future treatment.

The court ordered that Philip Leong Stores Pty Ltd compensate Norouzi for the future treatment of posterior lumbar decompression, as deemed reasonably necessary. The procedural breach did not affect the admissibility of the evidence or the outcome of the substantive claim. This decision reinforces the importance of procedural compliance while also upholding the rights of claimants under the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders