Sami v Unilever Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 540

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Sami v Unilever Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 540
APPLICANT:	Anita Sami
RESPONDENT:	Unilever Australia Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
DATE OF DECISION:	10 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; consequential condition; whether applicant suffered a consequential condition in her neck as a result of accepted shoulder injury; different onset of date of symptoms reported to different doctors; different mechanisms causing condition; ACQ Pty Ltd v Cook referred to; contradicting medical opinion that neck condition due to degenerative change not accepted; Held – applicant suffered consequential condition in cervical spine; award for medical expenses made.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffers from a consequential condition in her cervical spine as a result of her accepted injury that occurred on 19 February 2021. 2. The respondent pay the applicant’s past medical expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as set out in the Application to Resolve a Dispute. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ms Sami was employed by the respondent for around 18 years. She was initially employed as a packer, moving on to a machine operator after a number of years. Her duties, consistent with employment of this nature, were repetitive, and often involved moving of heavy materials.
Ms Sami suffered an injury to her right shoulder in the course of her employment. Liability for this injury was accepted by the respondent. Ms Sami underwent a series of medical interventions in her right shoulder, including investigations, injections, shoulder surgery (on a number of occasions) and regular physiotherapy.
Ms Sami now claims that she has a consequential condition in her neck, as a result of her accepted shoulder injury. The respondent disputes liability for the consequential condition.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the applicant suffers from a consequential condition in her neck, as a result of her accepted right shoulder injury.
The compensation claimed in this case is relatively minor, being some past medical expenses totalling around $1,500. A minor claim for some future treatment is also made. There is no dispute that if I make a finding in favour of the applicant for the consequential condition, the treatment expenses will follow (that is they are to be considered reasonably necessary).

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

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.
The matter proceeded to conciliation/arbitration on 26 September 2025. The applicant was represented by Mr McManamey of…

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 Sami v Unilever Australia Pty Ltd 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: [2025] NSWPIC 540
Decision Date: 10 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Sami, the applicant, and Unilever Australia Pty Ltd, the respondent. The dispute revolves around a workers' compensation claim, where Sami alleged that she suffered a consequential condition in her neck as a result of an accepted shoulder injury. The matter was heard in the Workers Compensation Division of the District Court of New South Wales. The legal issues that the court needed to decide included whether the applicant had indeed suffered a consequential condition in her neck, and if so, whether this condition arose as a result of the accepted shoulder injury.

In assessing the applicant's claim, the court examined the medical evidence presented, which included varying dates of onset of symptoms and differing mechanisms causing the condition. The court also considered the case of ACQ Pty Ltd v Cook, which established that a consequential condition must be directly related to the original injury. Despite conflicting medical opinions, the court determined that the applicant's neck condition was indeed a consequential condition, and not merely due to degenerative changes. This conclusion was based on the applicant's medical history, the timing of the symptoms in relation to the original injury, and the consistency of her reported symptoms to different medical professionals.

The court ultimately found that the applicant had suffered a consequential condition in her cervical spine, which was directly related to her accepted shoulder injury. Consequently, the court awarded the applicant compensation for medical expenses associated with the treatment of the consequential condition. The specific details of the compensation awarded, including the amount and any other orders, were not provided in the text. However, the court's decision affirmed the applicant's entitlement to compensation for the consequential neck condition.

Orders