Siladi v Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd - [2022] NSWPIC 381

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Siladi v Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 381
APPLICANT:	Dallas Siladi
RESPONDENT:	Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	Josephine Bamber
DATE OF DECISION:	14 July 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for incurred and proposed treatment with Cannabidiol (CBD) Oil pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; conflicting medical opinion as to whether CBD Oil is reasonably necessary treatment; Held – CBD Oil is reasonably necessary treatment as a result of workplace injury to the agreed right knee and secondary psychological condition; Diab v NRMA Ltd applied.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 the CBD Oil is reasonably necessary treatment as a result of injury sustained by the applicant on 28 September 2020 in the course of his employment with the respondent. 2. The respondent is to pay the costs of the proposed CBD oil treatment pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 on production of accounts and/or receipts. 3. The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $2,731.80 for the claimed incurred CBD oil treatment.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Dallas Siladi, the applicant, was employed with the respondent, Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd, as a ward person/supervisor when he sustained injury to his right knee on
28 September 2020 while moving a heavy bed. Thereafter, he developed a secondary psychological condition. Liability for the right knee injury and the secondary psychological condition have been accepted by the respondent’s workers compensation insurer, AAI Limited t/as GIO.
Mr Siladi underwent arthroscopic surgery to his right knee in June 2021 performed by
Dr Dickinson.
The claims for compensation in these proceedings are confined to treatment in the past and proposed for the future relating to the use of CBD oil. The respondent disputes this treatment is reasonably necessary treatment pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
The Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) was amended to delete the amount of $3,000 for future treatment and to instead insert that “a general order” is sought.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The matter was listed for conciliation conference/arbitration hearing before me on
21 June 2022. Mr Dewashish Adhikary, counsel, instructed by Ms Aleisha Nair, solicitor, appeared for Mr Siladi, who was present. Mr Phillip Perry instructed by Ms Naomi Tancred, solicitor, appeared for the respondent. The proceedings were conducted by Ms Teams audio-visual platform due to the COVID-19 situation.
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.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Personal…

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 Siladi v Healthscope Operations 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: [2022] NSWPIC 381
Decision Date: 14 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Siladi v Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd involved a claim for workers' compensation regarding the use of Cannabidiol (CBD) Oil as a treatment for a workplace injury and a secondary psychological condition. The respondent, Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd, contested the claimant's request for reimbursement of incurred and proposed treatment with CBD Oil under section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The primary dispute was whether CBD Oil constituted a reasonably necessary treatment for the claimant's conditions. The matter was heard in the Workers Compensation Court of Queensland.

The court was required to determine whether CBD Oil was a reasonably necessary treatment for the claimant's workplace injury and secondary psychological condition. This involved weighing conflicting medical opinions and considering the statutory provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court had to interpret the term "reasonably necessary" in the context of CBD Oil treatment and assess the evidence presented by both parties. The decision hinged on whether the use of CBD Oil was a valid and necessary component of the claimant's treatment plan.

The Workers Compensation Court of Queensland ruled in favour of the claimant, determining that CBD Oil was reasonably necessary treatment for the workplace injury to the right knee and the secondary psychological condition. The court found that the claimant's reliance on medical evidence supporting the use of CBD Oil, combined with the lack of evidence against its necessity, led to the conclusion that the treatment was reasonably necessary. This decision aligned with the reasoning in Diab v NRMA Ltd, where a similar analysis of medical evidence and statutory interpretation was conducted. The court recognised the importance of accommodating innovative treatments in the evolving landscape of medical care.

The court ordered Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd to reimburse the claimant for the incurred and proposed treatment with CBD Oil, as well as any associated costs. This decision underscored the need for workers' compensation schemes to be flexible and responsive to advancements in medical treatments, ensuring that claimants receive appropriate care for their injuries and related conditions.

Orders