Roukos v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 221

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Roukos v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 221
APPLICANT:	Joslyn Roukos
RESPONDENT:	Flight Centre Travel Group Limited
MEMBER:	John Turner
DATE OF DECISION:	21 May 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for permanent impairment compensation pursuant to section 66; injury to the lumbar spine not disputed; dispute as to injury to the right shoulder and consequential condition in the form of a sleep disorder; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan, Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, and State of New South Wales v Bishop cited; Held – award for the respondent in respect to the alleged injury to the right shoulder; applicant has suffered the alleged consequential condition in the form of a sleep disorder.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. There is an award for the respondent in respect to the alleged injury to the right shoulder. 2. I find that the applicant has suffered the alleged consequential condition in the form of a sleep disorder. 3. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for assessment as follows: Date of injury: 16 February 2019 – Personal Injury. Body systems / parts: lumbar spine, and nervous system (consequential condition). Method of Assessment: whole person impairment. 4. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents; (b) Reply and attached documents with the exception of the report of Dr Anthony Johnson dated 16 September 2024 which appears at pages 202 to 207 of the attachments, and (c) this Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Joslyn Roukos (applicant) brings proceedings against Flight Centre Travel Group Limited (respondent) in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) in which she alleges that she sustained injury to her lower back and right shoulder on 16 February 2019 when whilst stepping up to sit on a stool, the stool gave way, and she fell. The applicant also alleges that as a result of the injuries sustained, she has suffered a consequential sleep condition.
The applicant claims compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) for impairment of lumbar spine, right upper extremity (shoulder) and nervous system (sleep disorder).
It is not disputed that the applicant has sustained an injury to her lumbar spine.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the applicant has suffered a consequential sleep condition as a result of injury, and
(b) whether the applicant sustained injury to her right shoulder as alleged.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The matter was listed for conciliation conference/arbitration hearing before me on
9 May 2025. Mr Craig Tanner,…

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 Roukos v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Roukos v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 221
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 221
Decision Date: 21 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Roukos v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd, the applicant sought compensation for permanent impairment under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The injury to the lumbar spine was not disputed. However, the applicant claimed additional injuries to the right shoulder and a consequential condition in the form of a sleep disorder. The respondent denied these additional claims. The matter was heard in the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had sustained an injury to the right shoulder and if this injury had led to the consequential condition of a sleep disorder. The court considered the applicable case law, including Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan, Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, and State of New South Wales v Bishop. The court had to assess the credibility of the evidence provided and determine the extent to which the applicant's injuries and the sleep disorder were related to the employment.

The court found that the applicant had not suffered an injury to the right shoulder. The evidence did not support the applicant's claim in this regard. Consequently, the court ruled that the applicant was not entitled to compensation for the alleged shoulder injury. However, the court did find that the applicant had suffered a consequential condition in the form of a sleep disorder, which was linked to the lumbar spine injury. Despite this finding, because the shoulder injury claim was dismissed, the overall award was in favour of the respondent.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed in respect of the injury to the right shoulder. However, the court acknowledged the presence of the sleep disorder and the link to the lumbar spine injury. The final order was that the applicant was not entitled to compensation for the alleged shoulder injury, but the existence of the consequential sleep disorder was recognised.

Orders