Legal Research
Cases
Parmenter v Ians Transport Pty Ltd t/as Grundys Waste

Parmenter v Ians Transport Pty Ltd t/as Grundys Waste

Case [2025] NSWPICMP 514 15 July 2025

Impairment Rating

Deemed Date of Injury

Admissibility of Evidence

Workers Compensation Act 1987

Review of Medical Assessment Certificate

Unjustified Deduction

Workers Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Parmenter v Ians Transport Pty Ltd t/as Grundys Waste [2025] NSWPICMP 514
APPELLANT:	Victor Parmenter
RESPONDENT:	Ians Transport Pty Ltd t/as Grundys Waste
APPEAL PANEL
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	John Harris
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Geoffrey Curtin
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Drew Dixon
DATE OF DECISION:	15 July 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (WIM Act); Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WC Act); review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); worker suffered skin cancer from sun exposure with impairment of the face and body assessed at 11%; accepted deemed date of injury of 18 September 2020 due to sun exposure by last employer; Medical Assessor (MA) assessed a one-tenth deduction resulting in 10% WPI; MAC contained demonstrable error by including previous relevant employment as basis for section 323 deduction contrary to section 68B of the WC Act; medical evidence and opinion of Appeal Panel that worker’s employment for last forty years was previous relevant employment as defined in section 68B; Vannini v Worldwide Demolitions Pty Ltd applied; re-assessment on papers; no basis to make a deduction; onus of proof of deduction on employer; Matthew Hall Pty Ltd v Smart and Asbestos Remover & Demolition Contractors Pty Ltd v Kruse applied; skin cancers and impairment caused by sun exposure over working life; period of self-employment did not establish sun exposure contributory to impairment; Held – assessment revoked; appellant assessed at 11% WPI.

BACKGROUND

Mr Parmenter (the appellant) was employed with the respondent and sustained skin cancers deemed to have occurred in the employ of Ians Transport Pty Ltd t/as Grundys Waste (the respondent) on 18 September 2020 (the work injury).
Mr Parmenter filed an Application to Resolve a Dispute (Application) seeking compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in relation to facial and body scarring. The application pleaded employment against:
(a)    Ians Transport Pty Ltd;
(b)    Melrose Cranes & Rigging Pty Ltd;
(c)    Dave Fenech Electrical Services, and
(d)    Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd.
The Application did not plead the periods of employment for the respondents. However, the allegation of injury within the Application was pleaded as:
“The applicant has been in the employ of the respondents over his career of more than forty years, During his employment, the applicant has experienced frequent exposure in the sun for extended periods of time. The applicant has since developed skin cancer and facial disfiguration as a result. Please refer to the applicant’s statements for further information.”
As there were liability issues, the matter was listed as a preliminary conference before Senior Member Haddock. At the preliminary conference the Senior Member made orders by consent in favour of the second to fourth respondents. The s 66 claim against the first respondent was remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor with an agreed date of injury of 18 September 2020 (deemed).
The relevance of these orders and the effect of ss 15/16 and s 68B of the 1987 Act is explained later…

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 Parmenter v Ians Transport Pty Ltd t/as Grundys Waste

Details

AGLC: Parmenter v Ians Transport Pty Ltd t/as Grundys Waste [2025] NSWPICMP 514
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 514
Decision Date: 15 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Parmenter v Ians Transport Pty Ltd t/as Grundys Waste, the dispute before the Court involved a review of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The worker, Mr. Parmenter, had developed skin cancer from sun exposure, resulting in an impairment assessment of 11%. The deemed date of injury was established as 18 September 2020. The Medical Assessor had made a one-tenth deduction, resulting in a 10% Whole Person Impairment (WPI) assessment. The worker contested this deduction, arguing that it was based on a demonstrable error, as the previous relevant employment was incorrectly used as the basis for the deduction under section 323 of the Workers Compensation Act, contrary to section 68B.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Medical Assessor had correctly applied section 68B of the Workers Compensation Act in assessing the worker’s WPI, and if the one-tenth deduction was justified. The Court had to determine whether the previous relevant employment, which spanned forty years, was appropriately considered in the MAC and if there was a basis for the one-tenth deduction. The Appeal Panel's findings that the worker's employment for forty years constituted the previous relevant employment, as well as the medical evidence, were crucial to the decision. The Court also considered the onus of proof regarding the deduction, as outlined in cases such as Matthew Hall Pty Ltd v Smart and Asbestos Remover & Demolition Contractors Pty Ltd v Kruse.

The Court found that the Medical Assessor had erred by using the previous relevant employment as the basis for the deduction, contrary to section 68B of the Workers Compensation Act. The Appeal Panel's opinion that the worker’s forty-year employment was the relevant previous employment was upheld. The Court applied the principles from Vannini v Worldwide Demolitions Pty Ltd, concluding that the worker’s skin cancers and impairment from sun exposure over his working life were not attributable to his self-employment period. Consequently, the assessment was revoked, and Mr. Parmenter was reassessed at 11% WPI. The Court's decision was based on the demonstrable error in the MAC and the absence of a valid basis for the one-tenth deduction.

Orders