Riley v Deebel Group Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 414

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Riley v Deebel Group Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 414
APPLICANT:	Gary Riley
RESPONDENT:	Deebel Group Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	1 August 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for loss of artificial aid pursuant to section 74; applicant fell from a ladder and suffered fractures to his arm requiring emergency surgery; he was conveyed by ambulance to hospital, and before undergoing surgery was requested to remove his dentures to prevent a choking hazard; the dentures were then either lost or inadvertently destroyed by the hospital staff; respondent denied liability for the cost of replacing the dentures, alleging they were not lost in the accident which befell the applicant, and that on a commonsense evaluation of the causal chain, the loss did not occur “as a result of” the accident; Held – no requirement that the loss of or damage to an artificial aid must occur in the course of the accident which befalls a worker; loss need only be “as a result of” the accident; the loss of the applicant’s dentures was as a result of the accident which befell him in the course of his employment; the respondent is to pay the costs of and incidental to the replacement of the applicant’s dentures.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant met with an accident in the course of his employment with the respondent on 19 March 2024 which caused injury. 2. As a result of the accident referred to [1] above, the applicant's dentures were lost. 3. The respondent is to pay the costs of an incidental to the replacement of the applicant's dentures.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 19 March 2024, Gary Riley (the applicant) fell from a ladder in the course of his employment with the respondent, Deebel Group Pty Ltd suffering significant injury to his right upper extremity.
On the day of his injury, the applicant was admitted to Bankstown Lidcombe Hospital for surgery, where an open reduction and internal fixation with bone graft and scope was performed on his right distal radius and ulna.
There is no dispute that in preparation for surgery, the applicant was requested to remove his dentures to prevent a choking hazard during the course of the surgery. There is also no issue that during the course of that surgery or thereafter the applicant's dentures were either lost or destroyed by hospital staff.
The applicant brings a claim for property damage for the loss of his artificial teeth pursuant to s 74 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
The respondent denies liability for the cost of replacing the dentures. It submits the loss of the dentures was not caused by the accident which befell the applicant, and alternatively if the loss was so caused, it cannot be said to have occurred "as a result of" that accident.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the only issue in dispute is whether the respondent…

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 Riley v Deebel Group Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Riley v Deebel Group Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 414
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 414
Decision Date: 1 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riley brought a claim against Deebel Group Pty Ltd for compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, following an incident in which he fell from a ladder at work and suffered fractures to his arm. The applicant was taken to hospital by ambulance, where he was asked to remove his dentures to prevent a choking hazard during surgery. The dentures were either lost or destroyed by hospital staff. Deebel Group denied liability for the cost of replacing the dentures, arguing that they were not lost in the accident which befell Riley and that on a commonsense evaluation of the causal chain, the loss did not occur “as a result of” the accident.

The legal issue before the court was whether the loss of Riley's dentures was a compensable consequence of the accident, and thus a loss “as a result of” the accident. The court had to determine whether the loss of the dentures had to occur during the accident itself, or whether it was sufficient that the loss was a result of the accident. Deebel Group argued that the dentures were not lost during the accident, and that the loss did not occur “as a result of” the accident because there was no causal chain linking the accident to the loss of the dentures.

The court held that the loss of Riley's dentures was a compensable consequence of the accident, and thus a loss “as a result of” the accident. The court found that the loss need not occur during the accident itself, but rather it was sufficient that the loss was a result of the accident. The court held that the loss of the dentures was a result of the accident which befell Riley in the course of his employment, and that Deebel Group was liable for the cost of replacing the dentures. The court held that there was a causal chain linking the accident to the loss of the dentures, and that the loss was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the accident.

Deebel Group was ordered to pay the costs of and incidental to the replacement of Riley's dentures. The court held that the loss of the dentures was a compensable consequence of the accident, and that Deebel Group was liable for the cost of replacing the dentures. The court held that the loss need not occur during the accident itself, but rather it was sufficient that the loss was a result of the accident. The court held that the loss of the dentures was a result of the accident which befell Riley in the course of his employment, and that Deebel Group was liable for the cost of replacing the dentures.

Orders