Organ v Woolworths Group Ltd

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 

CITATION:

Organ v Woolworths Group Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 260

APPLICANT:

Parisa Organ

RESPONDENT:

Woolworths Group Limited

MEMBER:

Diana Benk

DATE OF DECISION:

11 June 2025

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; respondent accepted applicant suffered an injury to her cervical spine and then lumbar spine in two separate incidents; applicant now seeks to claim lump sum compensation aggregating injuries to the lumbar and cervical spine; without aggregation does not meet threshold required for lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66; respondent disputed aggregation could occur as the injuries resulted from two distinct events and were two separate pathologies; Department of Juvenile Justice v Edmed followed; Held – the injuries involved separate pathology arising from separate injurious events; accordingly they could not be referred for assessment together.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

The Commission determines:

1.     The applicant suffered an injury to her neck and right shoulder on 20 May 2022.

2.     The applicant suffered an injury to her lower back on 28 May 2022.

3. Award for the respondent with respect to the claim pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act1987.

A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

1. There is no dispute Parisa Organ (the applicant) (aka as Elena Organ and Parisa Golmohammadi) suffered injury to the neck and right shoulder on 20 May 2022 and her lower back on 28 May 2022 in the course of her employment with Woolworths (the respondent).

2. The respondent has accepted liability for each claim. The applicant now claims lump sum compensation on the basis of aggregated impairment assessments for the cervical and lumbar spine (neck and back).

3. The respondent asserts aggregation cannot occur because;

   (a)    injury to the cervical spine and lumbar spine arose from two separate workplace injuries;

   (b) s 322 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) prevents aggregation of injuries where they did not occur in the same incident or as a result of the same injury, and

   (c)    the medical evidence reveals that the injuries to the neck and back arose from two distinct incidents resulting in two distinct pathologies.

4. The sole issue for determination is whether ‘injury’ to the neck and back and any resultant impairment can be aggregated. Conciliation was unsuccessful.

5. At arbitration, Mr Necovski of counsel instructed by Mr Nemme represented the applicant.  Mr Saleh of counsel instructed by Mr Quillan represented the respondent.  Ms Perez was the insurer representative.

6. The evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) consisted of the Application to Resolve a Dispute and its annexures (ARD) and the Reply and its annexures. No oral evidence was called.

Applicant’s evidence

1. In her statement dated 11 November 2024 the applicant confirms she worked for the respondent as a retail assistant on a part-time basis averaging about 38 hours per week. The work was nominated as repetitive, heavy and required much physical exertion in a time sensitive environment. There was…