Sheahan v Springmount Property Services Pty Ltd - [2021] NSWPIC 421

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Sheahan v Springmount Property Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 421
APPLICANT:	Paul Sheahan
RESPONDENT:	Springmount Property Services Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	20 October 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for lump sum compensation; injury to left knee accepted; whether consequential condition at right knee as a result; extensive history of prior injury and symptoms resulting in surgery to both knees; whether effects of left knee injury had ceased; onset of symptoms in right knee when twisting and turning; whether evidentiary onus discharged; Held - applicant sustained a consequential right knee condition; matter remitted to President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess left knee injury and right knee consequential condition.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant sustained a consequential right knee condition as a result of the injury to his left knee on 28 December 2015. 2. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor as follows: Date of injury: 28 December 2015 Body Parts: Left lower extremity (knee) Right lower extremity (knee) - consequential Method: Whole Person Impairment 3. The materials to be referred to the Medical Assessor are to include: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and all attachments other than the report of Associate Professor Michael Ryan, dated 31 May 2021; (b) Reply and attached documents; (c) documents attached to an Application to Admit Late Documents lodged by the applicant on 13 September 2021, and (d) chronology lodged by the applicant on 20 September 2021.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Paul Sheahan (the applicant) was employed by Springmount Property Services Pty Ltd (the respondent) when he sustained an injury to his left knee caused by jumping from a street sweeping machine on 28 December 2015. Liability for the left knee injury is not in dispute.
On 10 June 2021, the applicant made a claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in reliance upon an assessment of 33% whole person impairment (WPI) made by Dr Christopher Oates. That assessment included a degree of permanent impairment at the right knee due to a consequential condition.
On 11 August 2021, the respondent’s insurer issued a notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act). The insurer determined that the effects of the left knee injury had ceased; there was no injury or consequential condition at the right knee; and no permanent impairment had resulted from the injury on 28 December 2015.
The present proceedings were commenced by an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) lodged in the Commission on 18 August 2021. The applicant seeks lump sum compensation in accordance with the assessment of Dr Oates.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The parties appeared for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing via teleconference on 20 September 201. The applicant was represented by Mr Dan Steiner of counsel, instructed by Mr Joel Francis. The respondent was represented by…

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 Sheahan v Springmount Property Services Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Sheahan v Springmount Property Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 421
Case: [2021] NSWPIC 421
Decision Date: 20 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sheahan v Springmount Property Services Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr Sheahan, sought lump sum compensation for injuries sustained in the course of his employment. The dispute centred on whether the injury to his left knee had any ongoing effects and whether there was a consequential condition in his right knee. The case was heard in the Commonwealth Circuit Court. The primary legal issue was whether the applicant had discharged the evidentiary onus of proving that the right knee condition was a consequence of the left knee injury. The court needed to determine if the symptoms and subsequent surgery on the right knee were linked to the left knee injury.

The court examined the applicant's medical history, which included extensive prior injuries and symptoms related to both knees. It was noted that the applicant had undergone surgery on both knees, and the onset of symptoms in the right knee occurred during activities that involved twisting and turning. The court held that the applicant had discharged the evidentiary onus by demonstrating that the right knee condition was a consequential injury. The court found that the effects of the left knee injury had not ceased and that the right knee condition arose as a consequence of the left knee injury.

The court remitted the matter to the President for a referral to a Medical Assessor to assess the extent of the left knee injury and the right knee consequential condition. This assessment was necessary to determine the appropriate compensation for the applicant. The court did not make a final determination on the compensation amount but set the stage for a detailed assessment by the Medical Assessor. The decision underscored the importance of establishing the causal link between the initial injury and any consequential conditions in workers' compensation claims.

Orders