Silwal v Crown Sydney Gaming Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 437

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Silwal v Crown Sydney Gaming Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 437
APPLICANT:	Smriti Silwal
RESPONDENT:	Crown Sydney Gaming Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Anne Gracie
DATE OF DECISION:	27 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for injuries to neck, left shoulder, and right shoulder; medical and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60 and lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66; consideration of injury and causation; consideration of whether the applicant is entitled to reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60; Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates, Department of Education v Ireland, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, and Briginshaw v Briginshaw considered; Held – pursuant to section 4(b)(ii) the applicant has sustained an injury to her left shoulder, right shoulder, and cervical spine during the course of her employment with the respondent; pursuant to section 60 the past medical expenses claimed by the applicant are reasonably necessary treatment expenses as a result of the injury sustained by the applicant; matter referred to the President of the Personal Injury Commission for referral to a Medical Assessor for determination of whole person impairment.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. Pursuant to s 4 (b) (ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) the applicant has sustained an injury to her left shoulder, right shoulder and cervical spine during the course of her employment with the respondent, employment being the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the disease. 2. Pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act, the past medical expenses claimed by the applicant are reasonably necessary treatment expenses as a result of the injury sustained by the applicant with a deemed date of injury of 9 August 2023. 3. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321A of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for assessment as follows: (a) date of injury: 9 August 2023 (deemed for the purpose of the claim pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act); (b) body systems/parts: cervical spine, right upper extremity (right shoulder) and left upper extremity (left shoulder), and (c) method of assessment: WPI. 4. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: (a) application to resolve a dispute and attached documents; (b) respondent’s reply and attached documents; (c) application to lodge additional documents and attached documents filed by the applicant on 17 July 2025, and (d) application to lodge additional documents and attached documents filed by the respondent on 23 July 2025. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Smriti Silwal, the applicant commenced work with Crown Sydney Gaming Pty Ltd, the respondent, as a food and beverage attendant in March 2022. The applicant is 28 years old.
The applicant’s work with the respondent involved holding food and beverages on a tray at shoulder height and…

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 Silwal v Crown Sydney Gaming 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: [2025] NSWPIC 437
Decision Date: 27 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Silwal v Crown Sydney Gaming Pty Ltd, the applicant, Ms Silwal, brought a claim for workers' compensation against the respondent, Crown Sydney Gaming Pty Ltd, seeking medical and treatment expenses under section 60 and lump sum compensation under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Ms Silwal alleged injuries to her neck, left shoulder, and right shoulder sustained during her employment with the respondent. The court was required to determine whether Ms Silwal had sustained an injury as defined by the Act and, if so, whether the claimed medical expenses were reasonably necessary as a result of the injury.

The primary legal issue for the court was to consider whether Ms Silwal had indeed sustained an injury to her left shoulder, right shoulder, and cervical spine in the course of her employment with the respondent, as required under section 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the medical and treatment expenses claimed by Ms Silwal were reasonably necessary as a consequence of the alleged injuries, in accordance with section 60 of the Act. The court considered relevant case law, including Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates, Department of Education v Ireland, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, and Briginshaw v Briginshaw, to determine the appropriate standard of proof and to assess the evidence presented.

The court found that Ms Silwal had sustained injuries to her left shoulder, right shoulder, and cervical spine during her employment with the respondent, thus satisfying the criteria under section 4(b)(ii) of the Act. The court further determined that the past medical expenses claimed by Ms Silwal were reasonably necessary treatment expenses resulting from the injury. The matter was referred to the President of the Personal Injury Commission for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the whole person impairment. The final orders included recognition of Ms Silwal's entitlement to the claimed medical and treatment expenses and a referral for the determination of whole person impairment.

Orders