Quinton v Mid Western Regional Council - [2023] NSWPIC 663

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Quinton v Mid Western Regional Council [2023] NSWPIC 663
APPLICANT:	Thomas Quinton
RESPONDENT:	Mid Western Regional Council
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	11 December 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for lump sum compensation; accepted right shoulder injury; whether consequential conditions at left shoulder and cervical spine; evidence of degenerative or pre-existing arthritis at both disputed body parts; Held – applicant discharged onus in respect of the consequential left shoulder condition; respondent’s expert erroneously focused on cause of pathology rather than symptoms and restrictions; applicant failed to discharge onus in respect of the cervical spine; evidence of symptoms at cervical spine prior to injury; inadequate explanation of causal mechanism in applicant’s statement, treating evidence or applicant’s expert reports; matter remitted to President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of bilateral shoulders.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant has sustained a consequential condition at the left shoulder as a result of the injury to his right shoulder on 9 April 2019. 2. Award in favour of the respondent with respect the allegation of a consequential condition at the cervical spine resulting from injury on 9 April 2019. 3. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment as follows: Date of injury: 9 April 2019 Body parts: Right upper extremity (shoulder) Left upper extremity (shoulder) - consequential Method: Whole Person Impairment. 4. The materials to be referred to the Medical Assessor are to include the Application to Resolve a Dispute and all attachments; the Reply and all attachments; document attached to an Application to Admit Late Documents lodged by the respondent on 27 October 2023 and the attached statement of reasons.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Thomas Quinton (the applicant), who is 31 years old, was a diesel mechanic employed by the Mid Western Regional Council (the respondent).
On 9 April 2019, the applicant sustained an injury to his right shoulder while performing maintenance work above shoulder height. Liability for the injury was accepted by the respondent’s insurer.
The applicant subsequently made a claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of the injury, relying upon an assessment of 15% whole person impairment (WPI) of the right upper extremity (shoulder), cervical spine and scarring made by Dr James Bodel on 11 June 2021.
In a notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 20 December 2021, the insurer disputed liability in respect of any injury or consequential condition at the applicant’s cervical spine as well as liability to pay lump sum compensation.
Liability for a consequential condition at the applicant’s left shoulder was disputed in a notice issued on 8 February 2022.
The insurer maintained the decisions to dispute liability in respect of the conditions at the applicant’s cervical spine and left shoulder following internal review on 7 June 2022.

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 Quinton v Mid Western Regional Council 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 663
Decision Date: 11 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Quinton v Mid Western Regional Council involved a claim for lump sum compensation related to injuries sustained by the applicant. The applicant alleged that his right shoulder injury led to consequential conditions in his left shoulder and cervical spine. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The central legal issues were whether the applicant had successfully demonstrated that his left shoulder and cervical spine conditions were a consequence of the original right shoulder injury, and if the respondent had discharged its onus in relation to the evidence of pre-existing conditions.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and the experts' reports. It was determined that the applicant had discharged the onus of proof in respect of the consequential left shoulder condition. The respondent's expert had focused on the cause of the pathology rather than the symptoms and restrictions, which was an incorrect approach. Conversely, the applicant had not discharged the onus in relation to the cervical spine. There was evidence that the applicant had symptoms at the cervical spine prior to the injury, and there was an inadequate explanation of the causal mechanism in the applicant's statement, treating evidence, or expert reports. The court found that the matter should be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of the applicant's bilateral shoulders.

In conclusion, the court found that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the consequential left shoulder condition but not for the cervical spine condition. The case was remitted for further assessment and determination of the applicant's entitlements.

Orders