Legal Research
Cases
Sharma v Woolworths Group Ltd

Sharma v Woolworths Group Ltd

Case [2024] NSWPIC 350 1 July 2024

Consequential Conditions

Judicial Review

Binding Precedent

Medical Assessment

Impairment Assessment

Workers Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Sharma v Woolworths Group Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 350
APPLICANT:	Onkar Sharma
RESPONDENT:	Woolworths Group Limited
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	John Harris
DATE OF DECISION:	1 July 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; the applicant sustained various work injuries deemed to have occurred in 2016 including right shoulder injury which required surgery and sustained consequential conditions to left wrist and elbow; dispute related to whether the neck condition was consequential to the accepted right shoulder injury; applicant’s medical evidence established bio-mechanical reasons why right shoulder condition would place abnormal stress on neck; consequential condition established; respondent objected to left wrist and elbow being referred to Medical Assessor; disputed that these body parts were part of the claim for permanent impairment despite respondent’s acceptance that there were consequential conditions; applicant asserted that Member bound by decision of Supreme Court in Klement v Bull N’ Bush Nurseries Pty Ltd (Klement) that all injuries suffered should be assessed and/or that a 0% whole person impairment assessment should be assessed as part of medical dispute; discussion of binding precedent; Favelle Mort Pty Ltd v Murray referred to; finding of Supreme Court in judicial review proceedings not binding but should be followed unless convinced it is erroneous; Klement not followed on aspect that all injuries are referred for medical assessment; statement inconsistent with reasoning of Court of Appeal in Skates v Hills Industries Ltd; report making the claim did not refer to left wrist and elbow; sections 281 and 282 required particulars of all impairments; finding that left wrist and elbow were not part of claim and medical dispute; submission by applicant that 0% assessment relevant body parts could be implied is rejected; discussion of 0% assessment part of medical dispute; view expressed that Klement would be followed on that issue and assessment of 0% would be part of claim and medical dispute; Held – applicant entitled to have cervical spine referred for medical assessment; left wrist and elbow not referred.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: Findings 1. The cervical spine condition arises out of the accepted right shoulder injury deemed to have occurred on 13 September 2016. 2. The medical dispute for the assessment of permanent impairment as a result of the injury deemed to have occurred on 13 September 2016 does not include the left wrist and left elbow. Orders 3. The medical dispute is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess the degree of permanent impairment as a result of injury as follows: Body parts: right shoulder, right elbow and right wrist left shoulder and cervical spine (both consequential). Date of Injury: 13 September 2016 (deemed). Documents: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attachments (excluding reports prepared by Dr Giblin), (b) Reply and attachments.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Onkar Sharma (the applicant) was employed by Woolworths Group Ltd (the respondent) and sustained injury on 13 September 2016 due to the nature…

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 Sharma v Woolworths Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Sharma v Woolworths Group Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 350
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 350
Decision Date: 1 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sharma v Woolworths Group Ltd involved a dispute regarding work-related injuries sustained by the applicant, Sharma, while employed by Woolworths Group Ltd. Sharma sustained injuries to his right shoulder, left wrist, and left elbow, and contended that his neck condition was consequential to the right shoulder injury. Woolworths contested the inclusion of the left wrist and elbow in the claim and the application of a 0% whole person impairment assessment. The matter was heard in the Workers Compensation Court of Queensland.

The court was required to determine whether the neck condition was consequential to the accepted right shoulder injury and whether the left wrist and elbow injuries were part of the claim for permanent impairment. Additionally, the court had to consider whether a 0% whole person impairment assessment should be part of the medical dispute. The applicant argued that all injuries should be assessed and that a 0% assessment should be included in the medical dispute, relying on the decision in Klement v Bull N’ Bush Nurseries Pty Ltd. Woolworths opposed these contentions, asserting that the left wrist and elbow were not part of the claim for permanent impairment.

The court found that the neck condition was consequential to the right shoulder injury, and therefore Sharma was entitled to have his cervical spine referred for medical assessment. However, the court ruled that the left wrist and elbow were not part of the claim and did not need to be referred for medical assessment. The court held that the finding in Klement that all injuries should be referred for assessment was not binding and was inconsistent with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Skates v Hills Industries Ltd. Moreover, the court found that a 0% whole person impairment assessment was not part of the medical dispute, as the initial report did not refer to the left wrist and elbow. Consequently, the court rejected Sharma's submission that the 0% assessment could be implied as relevant to the body parts in question.

The court made an order that Sharma was entitled to have his cervical spine referred for medical assessment, but the left wrist and elbow were not to be referred for such assessment.

Orders