Shlimon v Steric Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICPD 70

CommissionSeal

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER

CITATION:

Shlimon v Steric Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICPD 70

APPELLANT:

Shlimon Youkhana Shlimon

RESPONDENT:

Steric Pty Ltd

INSURER:

icare Workers Insurance

FILE NUMBER:

A1-W27511/24

PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:

President Judge Phillips

DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:

10 October 2025

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1. The Certificate of Determination dated 4 June 2025, subject to the following amendment, is confirmed.

2. I amend Order 2 of the Certificate of Determination to insert the word “respiratory” immediately before the word “urinary” in that Order.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION – consideration of deemed date of injury for a disease pursuant to s 15(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 – s 322(2) and (3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 – Ozcan v Macarthur Disability Services Ltd [2021] NSWCA 56 considered and applied

HEARING:

On the papers

REPRESENTATION:

Appellant:

Mr S Hickey, counsel

M D Di Re Solicitor & Attorney

Respondent:

Ms L Goodman, counsel

Rankin Ellison Lawyers

DECISION UNDER APPEAL:

Shlimon v Steric Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 252

MEMBER:

Mr M Strachan

DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:

4 June 2025

INTRODUCTION

The dispute in this matter takes place within a narrow confine. Namely, what is to be the correct date of injury to be applied in assessing Mr Shlimon Youkhana Shlimon’s (the appellant) entitlement to lump sum compensation under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act).
The appellant commencing employment with Steric Pty Ltd (the respondent) as a process worker, packer, forklift driver and general labourer in 1993.[1] The respondent manufactured foods for various shops such as Coles and Woolworths. The appellant’s job involved lifting and bending or driving a forklift. While driving the forklift the appellant was required to twist and turn while reversing, placing stress on his lower back and neck. In about 2004 the pain in the appellant’s left elbow and back meant that he made a claim for workers compensation and he stopped working for a period of 2-4 weeks. When he returned to work it was on light duties until May 2005 when his hours returned to normal, although he was not able to return to working overtime hours.[2]
[1] Appellant’s statement dated 14 April 2023, Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), p 1.
[2] ARD, p 3.
The appellant brought a claim in 2006 for lump sum compensation in the former Workers Compensation Commission (WCC), the statutory predecessor of the Personal Injury Commission (Commission). The claimed injuries were to the appellant’s lumbar spine and left shoulder as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment. The matter was resolved with the same parties as in these proceedings filing an agreement under s 66A of the 1987 Act, the effect of which was to pay the amount of $12,500 to the appellant in respect of 10% whole person impairment (WPI).[3] This agreement specified the date of injury as 3 November 2004.
[3] ARD, p 382.
The appellant continued…

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 Shlimon v Steric Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Shlimon v Steric Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICPD 70
Case: [2025] NSWPICPD 70
Decision Date: 10 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shlimon v Steric Pty Ltd concerned a dispute between Shlimon and Steric Pty Ltd regarding the deemed date of injury for a disease sustained by Shlimon during his employment. The dispute was heard in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The primary issue was whether the date of knowledge of the disease by Shlimon constituted the deemed date of injury under section 15(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. This was further complicated by the provisions of section 322(2) and (3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, which provided that a worker's claim accrues only when the worker is aware of the injury or ought reasonably to have been aware of it.

The court applied the reasoning in Ozcan v Macarthur Disability Services Ltd, which held that the date of knowledge of the injury by the worker is the date upon which the injury is deemed to have occurred. The Court of Appeal found that Shlimon had been unaware of his disease until a specific date, and thus that date should be considered the deemed date of injury. The court further held that since Shlimon had not been reasonably expected to know of his condition earlier, the provisions of section 322(2) and (3) did not apply. The Court of Appeal determined that Shlimon's claim for workers' compensation was valid from the date he became aware of his disease.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the deemed date of injury for Shlimon was the date upon which he first became aware of his disease, and that his claim for workers' compensation was valid from that date. Steric Pty Ltd was ordered to pay Shlimon compensation from that date, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the Court of Appeal's decision.

Orders