Richardson v Ausgrid - [2024] NSWPIC 24

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Richardson v Ausgrid [2024] NSWPIC 24
APPLICANT:	Peter Richardson
RESPONDENT:	Ausgrid
MEMBER:	Karen Garner
DATE OF DECISION:	17 January 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for compensation for medical treatment pursuant to section 60; accepted injury to applicant’s cervical spine as a result of the nature and conditions of employment; applicant underwent cervical spine surgery; whether applicant sustained an injury to his right shoulder as a result of the nature and conditions of employment; whether applicant sustained a right shoulder consequential condition; whether right shoulder arthroscopy and rotator cuff repair surgery is reasonably necessary to address the applicant’s injury and consequential condition; Held – the applicant sustained an injury to his right shoulder, pursuant to section 4 as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment; the applicant’s employment was a substantial contributing factor to such injury pursuant to 9A; the applicant sustained a right shoulder consequential condition; the right shoulder arthroscopy and rotator cuff repair surgery is reasonably necessary as a result of the injury and consequential condition.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained an injury to his right shoulder, pursuant to s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment. 2. The applicant’s employment was both the main and a substantial contributing factor to such injury pursuant to ss 4(b)(i) and 9A of the 1987 Act. 3. The applicant sustained a right shoulder consequential condition. 4. Right shoulder arthroscopy and rotator cuff repair surgery requested by Dr Hutabarat on 23 September 2022 is reasonably necessary as a result of the injury and consequential condition. The Commission orders: 5. The respondent to pay, in accordance with s 60 of the 1987 Act, the costs of and incidental to right shoulder arthroscopy and rotator cuff repair surgery requested by Dr Hutabarat on 23 September 2022.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Peter Richardson (the applicant) was employed by Ausgrid (the respondent) as a crane operator.
The respondent accepted a claim that the applicant sustained injury to his cervical spine, being disc protrusions to C3/4, C4/5, C5/6 and C6/7 as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment, with a date of injury of 16 January 2013.
On 17 September 2020, the applicant underwent anterior cervical discectomy and C3-7 lateral mass screws. On 21 September 2020, the applicant underwent stage 2, C3-7 lateral mass fusion on 21 September 2020.
The applicant alleges that he also sustained a bilateral shoulder injury and consequential condition, being tears of the right and left supraspinatus tendons, as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment and as a result of his arms being placed in awkward positions for an extended period when he was undergoing fusion surgery to his cervical spine to treat the disc protrusions.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

By these proceedings, pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act

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 Richardson v Ausgrid

Details

AGLC: Richardson v Ausgrid [2024] NSWPIC 24
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 24
Decision Date: 17 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Richardson v Ausgrid, the applicant, Mr Richardson, sought compensation for medical treatment pursuant to the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The primary issue was whether Mr Richardson sustained an injury to his right shoulder due to the nature and conditions of his employment and whether such an injury constituted a consequential condition. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the proposed right shoulder arthroscopy and rotator cuff repair surgery was reasonably necessary to address the injury and consequential condition.

The court examined the evidence provided regarding Mr Richardson's employment activities and their impact on his right shoulder. The medical reports and testimonies indicated that Mr Richardson had sustained an injury to his right shoulder, which was exacerbated by the nature and conditions of his employment. The court found that Mr Richardson's employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury under section 4 of the Act. Furthermore, the court concluded that the right shoulder injury constituted a consequential condition under section 9A of the Act. As a result, the court held that the proposed surgery was reasonably necessary to address the injury and consequential condition.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that Mr Richardson was entitled to compensation for the right shoulder arthroscopy and rotator cuff repair surgery, as well as any associated costs. The decision underscored the importance of employers ensuring safe working conditions and the availability of compensation for employees who suffer injuries due to their employment.

Orders