Pitty v Woolstar Pty Ltd - [2022] NSWPIC 395

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Pitty v Woolstar Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 395
APPLICANT:	Sean Pitty
RESPONDENT:	Woolstar Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Karen Garner
DATE OF DECISION:	20 July 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for weekly benefits compensation for permanent impairment compensation; applicant had accepted bilateral foot injury and injury to neck and right shoulder; whether the applicant has no capacity to work and had no capacity to work since 7 April 2021; Held – applicant sustained bilateral foot injury with a date of injury of 28 December 2017, including recurrent injury on 8 October 2020, and neck and right shoulder injury with a date of injury of 20 November 2018; the applicant’s employment was the main contributing factor to his injury; the applicant has no capacity to work since 7 April 2021; the respondent pay the applicant $811.20 per week from 7 April 2021 to date and continuing pursuant to section 37(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant sustained bilateral foot injury with a date of injury of 28 December 2017, including recurrent injury on 8 October 2020, and neck and right shoulder injury with a date of injury of 20 November 2018. 2. The applicant’s employment was the main contributing factor to his injury. 3. The applicant has no capacity to work since 7 April 2021.
ORDERS MADE:	4. The respondent to pay the applicant weekly compensation in the amount of $811.20 per week from 7 April 2021 to date, and continuing pursuant to s 37(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Sean Pitty (the applicant) is 41 years old. He commenced employment with Woolstar Pty Ltd (the respondent) as a full-time store-person and picker on 27 February 2017.
On 28 December 2017, the applicant notified the respondent of bilateral foot injury. On 22 February 2018, the applicant lodged a claim in respect of bilateral foot pain. After conservative treatment of bilateral foot pain, on 29 March 2018, the applicant was certified fit for pre-injury duties.
On or about 8 January 2019, the applicant lodged a claim for right shoulder and neck injury. On 15 January 2019, the insurer accepted the applicant’s claim in respect of right shoulder and neck injury. After treatment of the right shoulder and neck injury, the applicant was certified fit for pre-injury duties and the claim was subsequently closed on 16 March 2020.
On or about 3 July 2020, the applicant lodged a claim for aggravation of neck injury.
On 13 August 2020, the applicant reported a recurrence of his bilateral foot pain symptoms. On 12 October 2020, the applicant lodged a claim for bilateral foot injury with a date of injury being 28 September 2020.
By notice dated 28 January 2021 issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), the insurer denied liability for weekly benefits compensation pursuant to s 33 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987…

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 Pitty v Woolstar 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: [2022] NSWPIC 395
Decision Date: 20 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pitty v Woolstar Pty Ltd involved a claim for workers compensation for weekly benefits due to permanent impairment. The applicant sustained a bilateral foot injury on 28 December 2017, with a recurrent injury on 8 October 2020, and an injury to his neck and right shoulder on 20 November 2018. The applicant argued that he had no capacity to work since 7 April 2021 and sought compensation under section 37(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the applicant had sustained the injuries claimed, whether the injuries were caused by his employment, and whether he had no capacity to work since 7 April 2021. The court had to consider the medical evidence, the applicant's work history, and the extent to which his injuries had impacted his ability to work.

The court found that the applicant had sustained the bilateral foot injury and the neck and right shoulder injury, and that his employment was the main contributing factor to these injuries. The court also found that the applicant had no capacity to work since 7 April 2021. Based on these findings, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $811.20 per week from 7 April 2021 to date and continuing under section 37(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders