Rural Press Limited v Hancock

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:		Rural Press Limited v Hancock [2009] NSWWCCPD 160
APPELLANT:		Rural Press Limited
RESPONDENT:		Ronald Hancock
INSURERS:		1. Cambridge Integrated Services Australia Pty Ltd from 30/6/1998 to 30/6/2000; 2. QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd from 30/6/2000 to 30/6/2004 and from 1/7/2007 to 30/6/2008; 3. CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd from 1/7/2004 to 30/6/2007.
FILE NUMBER:		A1-4206/09
ARBITRATOR:	Mr R Bell
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:		9 September 2009
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:		22 December 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:		Injury; aggravation of a disease; weight of evidence; sections 4 and 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:		Acting Deputy President Deborah Moore
HEARING:		On the papers
REPRESENTATION:		Appellant:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Respondent:	Whitelaw McDonald
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:		1.    Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the decision of the Arbitrator dated 9 September 2009 are confirmed. 2.    Paragraphs 3 to 7 inclusive are revoked and the following orders made in its place: “3.  Award in favour of the Respondent.   4.  No order as to costs.” 3.    Each party is to pay its own costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

1. The Respondent, Mr Ronald Hancock, commenced employment with the Appellant, Rural Press Limited, as a compositor in about 1990. Mr Hancock had been employed in the printing industry since he was 16. He is presently 59 years old. In April 1981 he commenced employment with the Newcastle Star which was taken over by the Appellant in 1990. At that time, he began working with the Maitland Mercury.

1. Mr Hancock claimed that his duties as a compositor required him to work on his feet all day, and for extended periods when he did overtime. He said that in about 1994 he started to notice the gradual onset of pain in his left hip. By 1996 he said that his symptoms had deteriorated so he consulted Dr Mitchell, orthopaedic surgeon, who carried out a left hip replacement in September 1999. He was off work for a period of time and then resumed his usual duties with the Appellant.

1. In his statement dated 28 September 2004, Mr Hancock said that “in recent years” he had noticed similar problems in his right hip. He also said that since about 1997 or 1998 his duties changed in that he no longer worked on his feet, but sat at a computer all day. This activity he also claimed aggravated his “underlying condition.”

1. In a statement dated 14 February 2006 Mr Hancock said that he suffered from pain in both hips which radiated to his low back. He said that he had difficulties with everyday tasks such as showering and dressing, driving and household maintenance.

1. He had a right hip replacement again performed by Dr Mitchell in October 2006.

1. In a subsequent statement dated 18 February 2009, Mr Hancock confirmed that he still suffered from pain and restriction of movement in his left hip, lower back pain which radiated into…