Rosende v Randstad Pty Limited - [2022] NSWPIC 446

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Rosende v Randstad Pty Limited [2022] NSWPIC 446
APPLICANT:	Daniel Rosende
RESPONDENT:	Randstad Pty Limited
MEMBER:	Michael Wright
DATE OF DECISION:	8 August 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Lump sum claim for permanent impairment of the right upper extremity and cervical spine; right upper extremity not disputed; cervical spine disputed; consideration of factual and medical evidence; consideration of Greater Taree City Council v Moore and Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates; Held — applicant suffered injury to his cervical spine arising out of or in the course of his employment on 5 November 2018; matter referred to Medical Assessor.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffered injury to his cervical spine arising out of or in the course of his employment on 5 November 2018. 2. Matter remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of the degree of permanent impairment in respect of the right upper extremity and cervical spine, as a result of injury on 5 November 2018. Brief to Medical Assessor to include the Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, Reply and attached documents, and Applications to Admit Late Documents dated 1 July 2022 (2).

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

In an Application to Resolve a Dispute, Mr Daniel Rosende (the applicant) claimed lump sum compensation in respect of injury on 5 November 2018 in the course of his employment with Randstad Pty Limited (the respondent). Injury claimed was in respect of the right upper extremity and the cervical spine.
In a s 78 notice dated 11 February 2022, the workers compensation insurer (Allianz) disputed cervical spine injury or consequential condition. Injury to the right upper extremity was not in dispute.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION (the Commission)

At a conciliation/arbitration hearing on 7 July 2022, the applicant was represented by Mr Goodridge of counsel, instructed by Mr McKean, solicitor and the respondent by Ms Warren of counsel, instructed by Mr Tomkins, solicitor.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and considered in making this determination:
(a)    Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents;
(b)    Reply and attached documents;
(c)    Application to Admit Late Documents dated 1 July 2022, enclosing report of Dr Patrick dated 18 May 2022, and
(d)    Application to Admit Late Documents dated 1 July 2022, enclosing report of Dr Bosanquet dated 15 June 2022.

Oral evidence

There was no oral evidence.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Applicant’s statements

The applicant provided statements dated 24 September 2019 and 24…

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 Rosende v Randstad Pty 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: [2022] NSWPIC 446
Decision Date: 8 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rosende v Randstad Pty Limited is a case that involves a claim for a lump sum compensation related to permanent impairment. The applicant, Rosende, seeks compensation for impairments to his right upper extremity and cervical spine. While the impairment to the right upper extremity is not contested, the cervical spine impairment is. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court. The central legal issue was whether Rosende suffered an injury to his cervical spine that arose out of or in the course of his employment on 5 November 2018. The court had to consider both factual and medical evidence in light of precedent cases, including Greater Taree City Council v Moore and Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates.

In examining the evidence, the court considered the medical reports and the factual circumstances surrounding the injury. The applicant provided medical evidence supporting the claim that the cervical spine injury occurred on the specified date. The employer, however, contested this claim, providing counter-evidence. The court weighed these pieces of evidence meticulously, applying the legal standards set by the previous cases referenced. The court found that Rosende did indeed suffer an injury to his cervical spine that arose out of or in the course of his employment on the specified date. As such, the matter was referred to a Medical Assessor for further evaluation and determination of the appropriate compensation.

The court's decision hinged on the credibility and weight of the evidence presented. Given the findings, the court concluded that Rosende's claim regarding the cervical spine injury was substantiated. The matter was subsequently referred to a Medical Assessor to assess the extent of the impairment and to determine the appropriate lump sum compensation. This decision ensures that the applicant's claims are thoroughly evaluated, and the compensation is fairly determined based on the evidence.

Orders