| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | Papa v R P Bricklaying Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 272 |
| APPLICANT: | Robert Papa |
| RESPONDENT: | R P Bricklaying Pty Limited |
| SENIOR MEMBER: | Kerry Haddock |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 23 May 2024 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for permanent impairment compensation pursuant to section 66; accepted injuries to right lower extremity (ankle) and injury/consequential condition of right lower extremity (hip) determined by Commission; accepted consequential condition of lumbar spine; claim for consequential condition of left lower extremity (knee) and right and left upper extremities (shoulders); respondent disputed consequential conditions of left lower extremity and right and left upper extremities; consideration of Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, and Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes; applicant sustained consequential condition of his left lower extremity as a result of injury to his right lower extremity; Held – award for respondent with respect to consequential condition of right and left upper extremities; matter remitted to President for referral to Medical Assessor. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | The Commission determines: 1. There is an award for the respondent in respect of the claim for consequential condition of the right upper extremity (right shoulder) and left upper extremity (left shoulder). 2. The matter is remitted 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: Date of injury: 5 April 2016 – personal injury. Body system/parts: right lower extremity (right ankle; subtalar fusion; right hip); lumbar spine; left lower extremity (left knee), and TEMSKI scarring. Method of assessment: 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. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Robert Papa (Mr Papa) was employed by the respondent, RP Bricklaying Pty Limited, as a bricklayer.
Mr Papa sustained an accepted injury to his right ankle on 5 April 2016. It has been determined that as a result of that injury, he also sustained an injury to and consequential condition of his right hip; and accepted that he has sustained a consequential condition of his lumbar spine. He also claims to have sustained consequential conditions of his right shoulder, left shoulder, left knee, and left hip.
On 12 July 2021, the respondent’s insurer, GIO, issued the applicant with a notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act).
GIO disputed that the applicant had sustained injury on 5 April 2016 to his right hip, left hip, bilateral knees, bilateral shoulders, neck, and back. It confirmed that liability for injury to the applicant’s right ankle was accepted. GIO disputed liability for surgery to the applicant’s right hip.
The applicant brought proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission), in Matter Number W3205/21, seeking an award for the costs of right total hip replacement (THR), and…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Papa v R P Bricklaying 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] NSWPIC 272
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues revolved around whether the applicant's claimed consequential conditions were genuinely attributable to the accepted injuries and whether they met the criteria set out in relevant case law. The court considered precedents such as Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, and Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes to assess the connection between the initial injury and the consequential conditions. The court found that the applicant did indeed sustain a consequential condition of the left lower extremity due to the injury to the right lower extremity. However, the respondent was awarded the dispute concerning the consequential conditions of the right and left upper extremities.
The court concluded that the matter needed to be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to further examine the consequential conditions of the right and left upper extremities. This decision highlights the importance of clear evidence and legal precedents in determining the validity of consequential injury claims under workers' compensation legislation. The court's final orders were to remit the matter to the President for the aforementioned purpose.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.