Santos v WorldMark Pty Limited

Case [2021] NSWPIC 332


CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 

CITATION:

Santos v WorldMark Pty Limited [2021] NSWPIC 332

APPLICANT: Benjamin Santos
RESPONDENT: WorldMark Pty Limited
MEMBER: Anthony Scarcella
DATE OF DECISION: 3 September 2021
CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Accepted injury to the right shoulder; whether the worker suffered a frank injury to his cervical spine; whether the worker suffered a consequential condition to the left shoulder as a result of the accepted right shoulder injury; value of contemporaneous evidence; delayed complaints of left shoulder symptoms; Onassis and Calogeropoulos v Vergottis, Department of Aging, Disability and Home Care v Findlay, Department of Education and Training v Ireland, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Kirunda v State of New South Wales (No 4), Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd, Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles; Hancock v East Coast Timbers Products Pty Ltd, Australian Conveyor Engineering Pty Ltd v Mecha Engineering Pty Ltd & Anor and Munce v Thomson Cool Rooms Pty Ltd considered and applied; Held - the worker suffered injuries to the right shoulder and cervical spine arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent within the meaning of sections 4(a) and 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; the worker suffered a consequential injury to his left shoulder as a result of the accepted injury to his right shoulder.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

1. The applicant suffered injuries to the right shoulder and cervical spine arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent on 28 January 2017 within the meaning of sections 4(a) and 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

2.     The applicant suffered a consequential condition to his left shoulder as a result of the accepted injury to his right shoulder in the course of his employment with the respondent on 28 January 2017.

ORDERS MADE: 

3. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and related expenses as a result of injury on 28 January 2017 under section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

4.     The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 as follows:

Date of injury:              28 January 2017.

Body Systems:          Right upper extremity (right shoulder); left upper extremity (left shoulder); the spine (cervical spine); and the skin (scarring - TEMSKI).

Method of Assessment:       Whole Person Impairment.

5.     The following documents are to be provided to the Medical Assessor:

(a)    Application to Resolve a Dispute dated 12 May 2021 and attached documents;

(b)    Reply dated 2 June 2021 and attached documents;

(c)    Applicant’s Application to Admit Late Documents dated 4 June 2021 and attached documents;

(d)    Applicant’s Application to Admit Late Documents dated 27 July 2021 and attached documents;

(e)    Report by Dr Robin Diebold dated 13 August 2020, and

(f)    This Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

  1. The…

Continue reading Santos v WorldMark Pty Limited

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Santos v WorldMark Pty Limited [2021] NSWPIC 332
Case
[2021] NSWPIC 332
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Santos v WorldMark Pty Limited involved a dispute between Santos, the worker, and WorldMark Pty Limited, the employer, concerning compensation for injuries Santos suffered during his employment. The issues at hand included whether Santos sustained a frank injury to his cervical spine, and whether he suffered a consequential injury to his left shoulder as a result of an accepted injury to his right shoulder. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court required determining the nature and extent of Santos' injuries, their causation, and the appropriate compensation. The court had to assess the value of contemporaneous evidence, particularly in light of Santos' delayed complaints of left shoulder symptoms. The case referenced and applied several precedents, including Onassis and Calogeropoulos v Vergottis, Department of Aging, Disability and Home Care v Findlay, Department of Education and Training v Ireland, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Kirunda v State of New South Wales (No 4), Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd, Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles; Hancock v East Coast Timbers Products Pty Ltd, Australian Conveyor Engineering Pty Ltd v Mecha Engineering Pty Ltd & Anor and Munce v Thomson Cool Rooms Pty Ltd.

The court concluded that Santos suffered injuries to his right shoulder and cervical spine, which arose out of and in the course of his employment. It was determined that these injuries met the criteria under sections 4(a) and 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Additionally, the court found that Santos suffered a consequential injury to his left shoulder as a result of the accepted injury to his right shoulder. This finding was based on the evidence presented and the application of relevant legal principles.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.