Roddenby v Bunnings Group Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 17 min read
CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 
CITATION: Roddenby v Bunnings Group Limited [2021] NSWPIC 213
APPLICANT: Jennifer Jane Roddenby
RESPONDENT: Bunnings Group Limited
MEMBER: 25 June 2021
DATE OF DECISION: Philip Young
CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION- Issue estoppel; Consent Orders in prior proceedings in 2019 regarding award for the respondent for costs of lower back surgery; applicant subsequently assessed for and claimed section 66 lump sum for WPI lower back injury after surgery; respondent relies on Consent Orders to submit applicant estopped from claiming WPI component consequent upon surgery; Held- Consent Orders not specific on reason for section 60 award for the respondent; estoppel discussed generally, difference in issues on sections 60 and 66; Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited and Etherton v ISS Property Services Pty Limited considered; applicant not estopped but liberty to respondent to apply if earlier notified matter regarding causation injury and surgery is pressed.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

(a) proceeding with a claim for lump-sum compensation pursuant to section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, nor

(b)    asserting that the Medical Assessor determine the percentage of the applicant’s whole person impairment, if any, resulting from injury to his lower back with deemed date of injury 22 August 2017 without limitation of the referral to the Medical Assessor by exclusion of the effects of the 2018 surgery

ORDERS MADE: 

(a)    The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor (Orthopaedic Surgeon) to determine the extent of the applicant’s whole person impairment, if any, which results from injury to the applicant’s lumbar spine deemed to have occurred on 22 August 2017.

(b)    The President’s delegate is requested to place before the Medical Assessor a copy of the Application and attachments, a copy of the Reply and attachments and a copy of these Reasons for Decision.

(c)    Liberty is granted to the respondent to apply in the event that the respondent seeks to argue whether surgery to the applicant’s lumbar spine in 2018 is as a result of an injury to the applicant on 22 August 2017 or aggravation (etc) of a disease suffered by the applicant with deemed date of injury 22 August 2017.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

  1. Jennifer Jane Roddenby (the applicant) is a 55-year-old lady who was employed by Bunnings Group Limited (the respondent) as a casual employee at its Maitland store. She alleges that on 22 August 2017 she suffered injury to her lower back whilst working in the garden centre, alternatively that the nature of her duties to that date aggravated, exacerbated, accelerated or deteriorated her underlying lumbar disease.

  1. The applicant’s general duties included putting plants out on display and then later packing them away, pulling trolleys, watering, general cleaning and tidying, rotating pots from 9 cm up to mature trees in large pots, using pallet jacks to move pallets of fertiliser, compost, pots and the like.

  1. The applicant asserts that this work involved a lot of lifting, bending, pulling and pushing. She brings a claim pursuant to section 66…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Roddenby v Bunnings Group Limited 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
[2021] NSWPIC 213
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Roddenby, and the respondent, Bunnings Group Limited, appeared before the court to resolve a dispute related to workers' compensation. The applicant, who had undergone lower back surgery, sought a lump sum payment under section 66 for whole person impairment (WPI) following the surgery. The respondent argued that the applicant was estopped from claiming this component due to Consent Orders made in 2019 that awarded the respondent costs for the surgery. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Consent Orders and whether they precluded the applicant from claiming WPI following the surgery.

The court examined the nature of estoppel and its application in this context, noting that the Consent Orders did not explicitly address the reasons for the section 60 award concerning the surgery costs. The court further distinguished between the issues pertinent to section 60 and section 66 claims. By considering relevant case law, such as Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited and Etherton v ISS Property Services Pty Limited, the court concluded that the applicant was not estopped from claiming WPI. However, the court allowed the respondent the liberty to apply if they wished to contest the causation between the injury and the surgery.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the President for a referral to a Medical Assessor (Orthopaedic Surgeon) to determine the extent of the applicant’s WPI, if any, resulting from the injury to the lumbar spine. Additionally, the court requested that the President’s delegate provide relevant documents to the Medical Assessor. Finally, the respondent was granted liberty to apply if they sought to argue the causation of the surgery in relation to the injury.

Orders

Orders of the court

(a) The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor (Orthopaedic Surgeon) to determine the extent of the applicant’s whole person impairment, if any, which results from injury to the applicant’s lumbar spine deemed to have occurred on 22 August 2017.

(b) The President’s delegate is requested to place before the Medical Assessor a copy of the Application and attachments, a copy of the Reply and attachments and a copy of these Reasons for Decision.

(c) Liberty is granted to the respondent to apply in the event that the respondent seeks to argue whether surgery to the applicant’s lumbar spine in 2018 is as a result of an injury to the applicant on 22 August 2017 or aggravation (etc) of a disease suffered by the applicant with deemed date of injury 22 August 2017.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.