Petrovska v Woolworths Group Ltd - [2023] NSWPIC 317

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
Citation:	Petrovska v Woolworths Group Ltd [2023] NSWPIC 317
APPLICANT:	Letka Petrovska
RESPONDENT:	Woolworths Group Limited
Member:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	4 July 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; permanent impairment compensation; accepted right shoulder injury; claimed cervical spine injury and left shoulder consequential condition disputed; applicant also claims primary psychological injury said to arise from her treatment at work after and resulting from her physical injury; respondent alleges psychological injury is secondary, and raises defence per section 11A; ; Held – the applicant suffered cervical spine injury by way of aggravation of a pre-existing condition in the accident at issue; the applicant suffered a consequential condition to her left upper extremity (shoulder) as a result of the accepted right shoulder injury; the claimed psychological injury is a primary psychological injury; although the applicant suffers a secondary psychological injury, It is separate and distinct injury from the primary injury claimed; all claimed body systems remitted to the President of the Personal Injury Commission for referral to appropriate Medical Assessors.
determinations made:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffered an injury to her right upper extremity (shoulder and elbow) and cervical spine in the course of her employment with the respondent on 18 June 2017. 2. As a result of the injury referred to in [1], the applicant suffered a consequential condition to her left upper extremity (shoulder). 3. The applicant suffered a primary psychological injury in the course of her employment with the respondent with a deemed date of injury of 11 March 2019 as a result of her treatment by the respondent after her injury on 18 June 2017. 4. The claim for physical injuries is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the degree of permanent impairment arising from the following: Date of injury: 18 June 2017. Body systems referred: Right upper extremity (shoulder and elbow), cervical spine, left upper extremity (shoulder) (consequential condition). Method of assessment: Whole Person Impairment. 5. The claim for psychological injury is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the degree of permanent impairment arising from the following: Date of injury: 11 March 2019 (deemed). Body systems referred: Psychological injury. Method of assessment: Whole Person Impairment. 6. The documents to be referred to the Medical Assessors to assist with their determination are to include the following: (a) this Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons; (b) Application to Resolve a Dispute; (c) Reply; (d) applicant’s Applications to Admit Late Documents dated 24 February 2023 and 24 March 2023, and (e) respondent’s Application to Admit Late Documents dated 24 January 2023.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Letka Petrovska brings proceedings claiming permanent impairment compensation for alleged injuries to her right upper extremity and cervical spine, along with a consequential condition to her left upper extremity as a result of an injury suffered in the course of her employment with Woolworths Group Limited (the…

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 Petrovska v Woolworths Group 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: [2023] NSWPIC 317
Decision Date: 4 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Petrovska v Woolworths Group Ltd involved the applicant seeking compensation for a permanent impairment resulting from injuries sustained during her employment. The applicant, Petrovska, claimed that the injuries included a cervical spine injury and a consequential condition to her left shoulder, which she argued were caused by a workplace accident. The respondent, Woolworths Group Ltd, disputed these claims and argued that any psychological injury was secondary and should be treated under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court had to determine whether Petrovska's claims of cervical spine injury and the consequential left shoulder condition were valid, and if so, whether her psychological injury was primary or secondary.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Petrovska's cervical spine injury and left shoulder condition were caused by the workplace accident, and if her psychological injury was primary or secondary. The court had to interpret the relevant sections of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and assess the evidence presented by both parties. It was also necessary to consider the medical evidence and determine whether the injuries were compensable under the Act.

The court found that Petrovska suffered a cervical spine injury, which was an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, and a consequential condition to her left shoulder resulting from the accepted right shoulder injury. The court held that Petrovska's psychological injury was primary, and although she suffered a secondary psychological injury, it was distinct from the primary injury claimed. The court remitted all claimed body systems to the President of the Personal Injury Commission for referral to appropriate Medical Assessors to determine the extent of Petrovska's impairments and to assess her entitlement to compensation.

The final orders of the court were that Petrovska's cervical spine injury and left shoulder condition were compensable, and her psychological injury was a primary injury. The court directed the President of the Personal Injury Commission to refer the case to appropriate Medical Assessors to assess Petrovska's impairments and her entitlement to compensation. The court did not make any final determination on the amount of compensation at this stage.

Orders