Sam Conforti and K & S Freighters Pty Ltd
[2013] AATA 542
[2013] AATA 542
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Numbers
2011/2444, 2011/4087
Re
Sam Conforti
APPLICANT
And
K & S Freighters Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal G. D. Friedman, Senior Member
Date 2 August 2013 Place Melbourne Application 2011/2444: The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 6 June 2011 and substitutes the following decision:
(a)Mr Conforti suffered an injury left shoulder soft tissue bursitis which was first treated on 13 September 2006, to which his employment with the respondent contributed in a material degree, giving rise to compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act);
(b)The respondent shall pay to Mr Conforti the costs of all medical and related treatment expenses incurred in respect of the injury under s 16 of the SRC Act;
(c)The respondent shall pay Mr Conforti’s legal costs and disbursements in respect of these proceedings under s 67 of the SRC Act.
Application 2011/4087: The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 13 September 2011 and substitutes the following decision:
(a)From 10 June 2011 to the present date and at the present date Mr Conforti has reasonably required physiotherapy treatment for his right shoulder from a physiotherapist and/or exercise physiologist as part of a functional restoration program;
(b)From 10 June 2011 to the present date and at the present date the respondent shall pay to Mr Conforti the costs of physiotherapy treatment expenses incurred in respect of subacromial bursitis, right shoulder under s 16 of the SRC Act;
(c)The respondent shall pay Mr Conforti’s legal costs and disbursements in respect of these proceedings under s 67 of the SRC Act.
..............................[sgd]..........................................
G. D. Friedman, Senior Member
COMPENSATION – truck driver – left shoulder injury – whether work-related – right shoulder injury – whether physiotherapy reasonably required
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4(1), 4(9), 7(4), 14(1), 16, 53, 67
Re Chowdhary and Comcare [1998] AATA 448
Re Jorgensen and Commonwealth [1990] AATA 129
Re Popovic and Comcare [2000] AATA 264
REASONS FOR DECISION
G. D. Friedman, Senior Member
2 August 2013
Sam Conforti commenced employment with the respondent in March 2006 as a truck driver. He developed problems in his shoulders, particularly the right shoulder, and ceased driving duties in September 2006. He has been performing office duties since then and has not returned to driving. On 6 June 2011 the respondent made a reviewable decision refusing his claim for compensation for left shoulder soft tissue bursitis on the basis that it was not work-related (Application 2011/2444). On 13 September 2011 the respondent made a reviewable decision ceasing liability for medical treatment in the form of physiotherapy for subacromial bursitis, right shoulder (Application 2011/4087). Mr Conforti seeks review of the decisions.
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
Section 14(1) of the SRC Act, as it was at the relevant dates, provides:
14 Compensation for injuries
(1)Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.
Section 4 of the SRC Act provides:
4 Interpretation
(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
…
injury means:
a disease suffered by an employee; or
an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, being a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment; or
…
ailment means any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development).
...
disease means:
(a) any ailment suffered by an employee; or
(b) the aggravation of any such ailment;
being an ailment or an aggravation that was contributed to in a material degree by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensed corporation.
...
Section 7(4) of the SRC Act provides:
7 Provisions relating to diseases
…
(4) For the purposes of this Act, an employee shall be taken to have sustained an injury, being a disease, or an aggravation of a disease, on the day when:
(a) the employee first sought medical treatment for the disease, or aggravation; or
…
Section 16(1) of the SRC Act provides:
16 Compensation in respect of medical expenses etc.
(1)Where an employee suffers an injury, Comcare is liable to pay, in respect of the cost of medical treatment obtained in relation to the injury (being treatment that it was reasonable for the employee to obtain in the circumstances), compensation of such amount as Comcare determines is appropriate to that medical treatment.
Section 53(1) of the SRC Act provides:
53 Notice of injury or loss of, or damage to, property
(1) This Act does not apply in relation to an injury to an employee unless notice in writing of the injury is given to the relevant authority:
(a) as soon as practicable after the employee becomes aware of the injury; or
…
ISSUES
The issues before the Tribunal are:
·Was Mr Conforti’s left shoulder injury contributed to, to a material degree, by his employment with the respondent? If so, is he entitled to compensation under s 16 of the SRC Act?
·Is Mr Conforti entitled to compensation under s 16 of the SRC Act for physiotherapy for his right shoulder condition?
WAS MR CONFORTI’S LEFT SHOULDER INJURY CONTRIBUTED TO, TO A MATERIAL DEGREE, BY HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH THE RESPONDENT?
Mr Conforti told the Tribunal that he left school in Year 10 and completed three years of a hairdressing apprenticeship before working as a machine operator, then driving forklifts and overhead cranes for a number of years until he commenced truck driving in the late 1980s. He drove concrete trucks, container vehicles and semi-trailers. In March 2006 he commenced employment with the respondent and the work involved heavy duties, resulting in a number of medical conditions.
Mr Conforti explained that his employment with the respondent involved driving semi-trailers that carried general freight within Victoria. He said that his job was physically demanding and required him on occasions to climb on top of the load to assist in the loading and unloading process. He had to insert and remove gates on his truck and tie and secure his load using tarpaulins and ropes. On many occasions he was required to tie the tarpaulin covering his load which involved 150 ties, and this process took up to 2 hours. He said that he was working between 10 and 12 hours per day including overtime.
In relation to his injuries Mr Conforti stated that the heavy nature of his work caused him to develop a double hernia as well as pain in his neck and shoulders. On 14 September 2006 he attended his general practitioner complaining of neck and shoulder pain. He said that on 22 September 2006 he lodged a claim for compensation in respect of his right shoulder and neck condition. Mr Conforti told the Tribunal that he first attended Mr A Phu, physiotherapist, on 25 September 2006 for pain in both shoulders. The respondent accepted the claim and Mr Conforti was placed on light duties, performing mainly clerical duties in the office. He said that in December 2006 he underwent a double hernia operation and was off work until February 2007, when he returned to light duties and continued the office work. He said that he gradually developed further problems in his left shoulder as a consequence of overcompensating for his right shoulder pain.
Mr Conforti said that in May 2007 he tried to do forklift work but after eight weeks he could not continue because of pain in both shoulders. He ceased work on 8 October 2007 and underwent surgery on his right shoulder on 21 October 2008. He remained off work until December 2009, and said that during this period his left shoulder was still causing problems. Mr Conforti resumed light duties in the office but said he had ongoing pain in his left and right shoulders, and the left shoulder became increasingly painful. He spent some time working in the company's weighbridge before transferring to the import/export section where he remains. He said that on 28 January 2011 he reported the left shoulder pain to his general practitioner who arranged an ultrasound. This showed some bursitis in his left shoulder. He said that he completed an incident report on 11 February 2011 confirming that his left shoulder symptoms had become worse, although there was no specific incident. On the same day he completed a claim for compensation in respect of his left shoulder injury.
Mr Conforti told the Tribunal that he is continuing to perform office duties, including stocktaking which requires him to write on a clipboard held at chest height, which causes pain in both shoulders. Currently he takes Nurofen Plus tablets on most days for the pain in both shoulders. He said that his symptoms, particularly in his left shoulder, have become worse and he finds difficulty sleeping. He attends his general practitioner monthly.
Dr M Hagos told the tribunal that he has been Mr Conforti’s general practitioner for a number of years. He said that Mr Conforti attended on 14 September 2006 with right and left shoulder pain and neck pain which had been present for 4 to 5 months and which Dr Hagos believed was contributed to by the nature of the work which included lifting gates, tapes, ropes and straps on a daily basis. He said that x-rays and ultrasound of both shoulders showed tendinitis, bursitis and impingement of the right shoulder, and bursitis and tendinitis of the left shoulder. Dr Hagos concluded that Mr Conforti is suffering from a chronic right shoulder condition. He also has chronic left shoulder pain which will continue to require treatment.
Dr G Davison, occupational physician, stated in a report dated 8 March 2007 that Mr Conforti complained of bilateral shoulder pain which was more severe on the left side but without a history of a specific incident. He said that the cause of the left shoulder symptoms was not clear because ultrasound examination had not been undertaken on that side.
Mr B Love, orthopaedic surgeon, told the Tribunal that he carried out rotator cuff decompression surgery on Mr Conforti’s right shoulder on 21 October 2008. He said that progress had been slow but there had been some gradual improvement when he assessed Mr Conforti in April 2009. Following a further assessment in August 2012 Mr Love said that despite physiotherapy the symptoms were continuing to cause problems, but that the left shoulder was now giving Mr Conforti the most difficulty. Mr Love concluded that the injury to both shoulders was work-related.
Mr J O'Brien, orthopaedic surgeon, stated in a report dated 25 February 2009 that he took a history of right shoulder pain that was reported in February 2007, leading to surgery in October 2008. He said that Mr Conforti reported significant pain in the left shoulder which began before the surgery to the right shoulder, and continued afterwards. This was of a similar nature and distribution to the right shoulder pain and was described as being aggravated by movement of the left arm, heavy lifting, driving a car, and an inability to lie on the left side. Mr O'Brien stated that he found tenderness around the left shoulder, and an ultrasound of the left shoulder on 20 March 2008 demonstrated left supraspinatus tendinosis with subacromial bursitis and mild bursal impingement.
Mr O'Brien noted that bilateral shoulder pain was reported to Dr Hagos on 14 September 2006 and that an x-ray of both shoulders was taken in September 2006. He said that in relation to the left shoulder, the signs suggest the presence of rotator cuff tendinopathy associated with impingement. He concluded that Mr Conforti’s employment was a significant contributing factor to the bilateral shoulder pathology. In a further report dated 13 October 2011 Mr O'Brien stated that he re-examined Mr Conforti on 27 September 2011 and stated that Mr Conforti reported constant bilateral shoulder pain and that the left shoulder pain is now worse than the right. This pain is aggravated by any repetitive use of the left arm, and the pain can be significant at night, resulting in sleep disturbance. After a further examination on 8 January 2013 Mr O'Brien reported that the clinical condition is stable, with chronic bilateral shoulder pain, to which employment remains a significant contributing factor. In oral evidence Mr O'Brien said that when examining Mr Conforti he found no sign of exaggeration of symptoms.
Dr M Bloom, occupational & environmental physician, stated in a report dated 19 February 2013 that Mr Conforti reported constant shoulder pain and that the left shoulder pain is now worse than the right. Dr Bloom found dysfunction of the left shoulder, characterised by restricted range of movement and by pain. Symptoms were long-standing and apparently have worsened. He noted the nature of the duties as a truck driver involving some use of both arms at and above shoulder height whilst under load, together with the potential contribution of constitutional factors and previous occupational history. He noted that the left shoulder condition apparently has worsened since Mr Conforti ceased all physically demanding activities with the respondent at the end of 2006.
Dr Bloom said that this would support the concept of a constitutional condition/disease process rather than a strain injury. If the work with the respondent had been a significant contributing factor to the left shoulder condition, a gradual improvement in the symptoms since cessation of work would have been anticipated, rather than a gradual deterioration. Dr Bloom concluded that Mr Conforti has an underlying constitutional condition that was probably exacerbated in the course of his work but was not necessarily caused by his period of six months working as a truck driver with the respondent.
Dr D Elder, occupational and environmental physician, stated in a report dated 21 October 2009 that in addition to the right shoulder injury, Mr Conforti claimed that he injured his left shoulder by overcompensating by utilising his left shoulder. Dr Elder took a history of pain in both shoulders and noted that an ultrasound of the left shoulder dated 20 March 2008 showed supraspinatus tendonosis and subacromial bursitis with positive impingement. Dr Elder saw Mr Conforti again on 2 February 2011 and was told that the left shoulder pain had worsened. He concluded that Mr Conforti suffers from bursitis in the left shoulder which is constitutional in nature and not related to employment.
Mr M Shannon, orthopaedic surgeon, stated in a report dated 13 November 2009 that he took a history of left shoulder pain developing gradually due to overcompensating for the right shoulder. Mr Shannon said he had the impression that the symptoms arose because of ordinary daily activities. Mr Shannon diagnosed rotator cuff pathology in both shoulders. He said that the left shoulder pathology is similar to the right, but there is not much evidence to suggest that the injury is work-related. In addition Mr Shannon stated that the significant onset of symptoms of left shoulder pain would appear to have occurred when Mr Conforti was either not working or on light duties. Mr Shannon said that he did not think that employment has been a significant contributing factor to the aggravation of the underlying condition in the left shoulder.
In a further report dated 23 October 2012 Mr Shannon acknowledged that documentation from 2006 and 2007 indicates that Mr Conforti experienced pain in his left shoulder at the same time as he reported injury to his the right shoulder, even though the claim for compensation was not lodged until 2011. Mr Shannon concluded that the opinion expressed in his first report needs to be altered because there now appears to be a relationship in time between development of the left shoulder symptoms and the cessation of work by Mr Conforti in September 2006. Under cross-examination Mr Shannon agreed that symptoms of an injury may not be evident when the injury occurs, and may take considerable time to develop. He also agreed that the work-related activities such as stretching, pulling and lifting described by Mr Conforti could result in symptoms of pain in the longer term.
Mr Phu confirmed in a report dated 21 June 2012 that Mr Conforti first attended the clinic for treatment of an injury sustained at work which affected both right and left shoulders. The right shoulder condition was diagnosed as impingement syndrome with tendinitis, and an ultrasound on the left shoulder showed left supraspinatus with subacromial bursitis. Mr Phu said that following right shoulder surgery on 21 October 2008 Mr Conforti complained of increased pain in his left shoulder due to overcompensating because of limited use of the right arm. In respect of the left shoulder injury, he said that Mr Conforti had been complaining about left shoulder pain and had been receiving treatment when he first injured himself. This commenced in late 2006 and extended to 2011. Mr Phu stated that the left shoulder condition had deteriorated over time because of the limited physiotherapy treatment allowed, plus the fact that Mr Conforti was still working, and due to natural wear and tear in the shoulder.
The Tribunal finds that Mr Conforti gave evidence in a frank and honest manner, and accepts that he would rather have continued driving trucks than working in the respondent’s office performing clerical and administrative duties. Clinical notes from his general practitioner show that he complained of neck and back pain in January and February 2006. He informed his general practitioner of left and right shoulder pain on 14 September 2006 following his work-related activities such as loading and unloading heavy vehicles, inserting gates, and securing loads by tying straps and tarpaulins, but did not lodge a claim for compensation until 2011. The Tribunal accepts Mr Conforti’s account of the worsening of the symptoms over time. This is supported by the evidence from Mr Shannon, Mr O’Brien and Dr Bloom that an inflammatory-like condition such as a shoulder injury may develop over a period, and may be asymptomatic at times.
In all the circumstances the Tribunal finds that the left shoulder condition that was first noted by Dr Hagos on 14 September 2006 progressed over time, and that the date of injury for the purposes of s 7(4) of the SRC Act was the date Mr Conforti first sought medical treatment and was after 1 July 2006, which was the date the respondent was granted a licence to be subject to the provisions of the SRC Act.
The Tribunal also accepts the evidence from Mr Conforti that his ongoing left shoulder symptoms were overshadowed by the more severe right shoulder symptoms which required surgery. This would explain the delay in lodging the claim for compensation until 2011, which the Tribunal finds is …as soon as practical after the employee becomes aware of the injury for the purposes of s 53 of the SRC Act.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence from Dr Hagos, Mr Love and Mr O’Brien, which is consistent with the evidence given by Mr Conforti about the development of the symptoms of left shoulder pain following the physical requirements of his employment with the respondent. Mr Shannon acknowledged the degenerative process of an injury of this type. Because of the acceptance of the degenerative process in this case the Tribunal gives less weight to the evidence from Dr Bloom and Dr Elder that the injury was constitutional in nature based on a conclusion that the symptoms did not improve after Mr Conforti ceased the physical activities involved in truck-driving.
In considering the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the left shoulder symptoms that were first reported by Mr Conforti in September 2006 when he also reported right shoulder symptoms gradually worsened and were contributed to in a material way by his employment with the respondent and are compensable under the SRC Act.
IS MR CONFORTI ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION UNDER S 16 OF THE SRC ACT FOR ONGOING PHYSIOTHERAPY FOR HIS RIGHT SHOULDER CONDITION?
Mr Conforti said that the physiotherapy treatment for his right shoulder has been beneficial because it makes him feel more comfortable, and helps him sleep because it lessens the pain. He added that it also reduces his reliance on medication.
In relation to the treatment received, Mr Phu explained that physiotherapy treatment has included glenohumeral mobilisation and glides; soft tissue massage around shoulder joint and surrounding muscles; cervical and thoracic spinal mobilisation; heat therapy; electrotherapy involving ultrasound and electrical stimulation; acupuncture and dry needling; postural exercises to strengthen scapular stability; and home exercises involving upper body strengthening exercises and stretches. In respect of the right shoulder, Mr Phu stated that he believes that ongoing treatment is essential for work and the activities of daily living. Although surgery for the right shoulder and rehabilitation provided some assistance to Mr Conforti to regain strength and range in his arm, the right shoulder pain and weakness in strength is an ongoing issue. Mr Phu acknowledged that physiotherapy will only provide maintenance and will prevent the injury from worsening, and he doubted that Mr Conforti will fully recover, but the right shoulder would have deteriorated since June 2011 from natural wear and tear and the cessation of physiotherapy treatment.
Mr O'Brien told the Tribunal that physiotherapy is a valid and reasonable method of pain relief as an alternative to medication because it helps to treat the pain even though such treatment will not cure the problem. Mr O’Brien concluded that, in Mr Conforti’s circumstances, ongoing physiotherapy would be beneficial and justifiable.
Dr Bloom stated that Mr Conforti has had physiotherapy treatment to his right shoulder for about four years and ceased in about 2010. Dr Bloom understood that the physiotherapy was essentially passive in nature as it involved massage and manipulation, heat treatment and ultrasound and had been unsuccessful because the pain had worsened. He stated that management of rotator cuff syndrome with impingement would usually involve a program of muscle-strengthening aimed specifically at the rotator cuff muscles in order to stabilise the rotator cuff. He said that treatment of Mr Conforti’s shoulder condition should be aimed at functional restoration which would require a mobilising and strengthening exercise program, followed by a self-managed program of exercises, rather than surgery or a continuation of passive modalities of physical therapy delivered by a physiotherapist.
Under cross-examination Dr Bloom agreed that physiotherapy treatment had provided some short term relief from the pain but he maintained that such treatment would not assist with chronic dysfunction. He also agreed that a mobilising and strengthening exercise program could be administered by a health professional such as an exercise physiologist or an experienced physiotherapist.
Dr Elder told the Tribunal that physiotherapy treatment for the right shoulder was passive in nature because it relied on massage, ultrasound and heat treatment, and that despite any temporary relief by way of improved sleep or diminished stiffness and discomfort such treatment was of no long-term functional benefit. Under cross-examination he agreed that right shoulder functionality could be assisted by exercise and other techniques designed to be self-managed in the future. He said that a competent physiotherapist could administer such a program.
Mr Shannon stated in his first report that the physiotherapy undertaken by Mr Conforti, being of a passive nature involving palliative measures such as massage, was a waste of time. However he acknowledged that physiotherapy should be directed to an exercise program to strengthen the rotator cuff musculature and to stabilise the shoulder girdle. He also said that Mr Conforti may benefit from hydrotherapy or a structured gymnasium program to help regain function in his shoulders. Mr Shannon told the Tribunal that physiotherapy of an active nature involving the right shoulder may be beneficial to Mr Conforti.
On the question of whether the medical treatment obtained by Mr Conforti is reasonable in the circumstances under s 16 of the SRC Act, the Tribunal notes that in Re Jorgensen and Commonwealth [1990] AATA 129 Gray J stated at [12]:
…In my view, the question of reasonableness in the circumstances is intended to raise issues as to whether some kind of medical treatment other than that undertaken, or in some cases no medical treatment at all, would have been better for a person suffering from the particular injury. A reference to the circumstances raises subjective factors, but they are intended to be subjective factors related to the nature of the injury, and not to details of the personal life of an applicant for compensation.
In Re Chowdhary and Comcare [1998] AATA 448 the Tribunal stated at [53]:
…In particular, there is no evidence of any plan to have the physiotherapy treatment accompanied by a course of physical exercise such that the applicant might become re-conditioned and better able to cope with pain and manage a return to work. While provision of temporary relief from pain through physiotherapy will in many circumstances qualify as medical treatment which it is reasonable for an employee to obtain, there will in some cases come a point where it is no longer reasonable unless it is part of a plan for permanent improvement in the health of the employee.
In Re Popovic and Comcare [2000] AATA 264 the Tribunal stated:
28. In relation to the applicant's claim for physiotherapy treatment expenses, in our view there is no role for passive physiotherapy in the applicant's current treatment regime. The physiotherapy he was having could not improve him in the long term, has limited, if any, short term benefit, and may in fact be contra-indicated. Any therapeutic benefit he received was small and short-lived. We accept that pain relief, even short-term relief or reduction in pain, can be therapeutic (Comcare v Watson (1997) 73 FCR 273 at 276 per Finn J). However, in this case any benefit is outweighed by the counter-productive effect of it leading the applicant to a dependent state, inhibiting his ability to learn to cope, and to embark on pain management programs to assist him with that object. Taking into account the whole of the evidence before us, we consider that in the applicant's case it was not in his best interest for passive physiotherapy modalities to have continued beyond 16 September 1997 (Re Jorgenson and Commonwealth)…
29. Even if we found that the short-term therapeutic benefit derived by the applicant was therapeutic for the purposes of the Act, in our opinion it is not reasonable treatment in the circumstances for the reasons mentioned above. To the extent the applicant derives some therapeutic value from the psychological effect of receiving the treatment, psychologists could better provide this in an appropriately devised pain management plan.
The Tribunal takes into account that Mr Conforti has found physiotherapy treatment to his right shoulder to have been of some short-term value in terms of improved sleep and physical comfort, plus a reduced reliance on medication. The Tribunal also notes Mr Phu’s evidence that physiotherapy administered by him, being essentially of a passive or palliative nature involving massage and other forms of treatment, is beneficial for maintenance and for preventing the injury from worsening.
However, although the temporary relief or benefit obtained by physiotherapy has been helpful to Mr Conforti, the Tribunal accepts the evidence from Mr O’Brien, Dr Bloom, Dr Elder and Mr Shannon that passive or palliative physiotherapy does not contribute to long-term or lasting improvement in Mr Conforti’s right shoulder condition. In addition other forms of therapy or treatment might equally be beneficial in providing short-term relief or benefit. In these circumstances the Tribunal concludes that passive or palliative physiotherapy does not constitute medical treatment that is reasonable for the purposes of s 16 of the SRC Act.
On the other hand the Tribunal accepts the evidence from Dr Bloom, Dr Elder and Mr Shannon in relation to the long-term benefit of an active therapeutic program that would assist in promoting improved functionality in Mr Conforti’s right shoulder.
In all the circumstances the Tribunal finds that a functional approach to physiotherapy by means of an active physiotherapy program administered by an appropriately qualified physiotherapist or exercise physiologist constitutes medical treatment that is reasonable, and the cost should be met by the respondent.
DECISION
Application 2011/2444: The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 6 June 2011 and substitutes the following decision:
(a)Mr Conforti suffered an injury left shoulder soft tissue bursitis which was first treated on 13 September 2006, to which his employment with the respondent contributed in a material degree, giving rise to compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act);
(b)The respondent shall pay to Mr Conforti the costs of all medical and related treatment expenses incurred in respect of the injury under s 16 of the SRC Act
(c)The respondent shall pay Mr Conforti’s legal costs and disbursements in respect of these proceedings under s 67 of the SRC Act.
Application 2011/4087: The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 13 September 2011 and substitutes the following decision:
(a)From 10 June 2011 to the present date and at the present date Mr Conforti has reasonably required physiotherapy treatment for his right shoulder from a physiotherapist and/or exercise physiologist as part of a functional restoration program;
(b)From 10 June 2011 to the present date and at the present date the respondent shall pay to Mr Conforti the costs of physiotherapy treatment expenses incurred in respect of subacromial bursitis, right shoulder under s 16 of the SRC Act;
(c)The respondent shall pay Mr Conforti’s legal costs and disbursements in respect of these proceedings under s 67 of the SRC Act.
I certify that the preceding 44 (forty -four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision of G. D. Friedman, Senior Member. .............................[sgd]...........................................
Associate
Dated 2 August 2013
Dates of hearing 25, 26 and 27 February, 29 July 2013 Counsel for the Applicant Mr M Carey Solicitors for the Applicant Hounslow & Associates Counsel for the Respondent Mr M Snell Solicitors for the Respondent Clarke Legal
0
3
0