Springfield v Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 439

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Springfield v Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 439
APPLICANT:	Jacqueline Ann Springfield
RESPONDENT:	Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Anne Gracie
DATE OF DECISION:	27 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for injury to left shoulder and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60; consideration of applicant’s and other witnesses’ statements, medical reports and other treatment records, claim correspondence, and factual material; consideration of injury and causation and main contributing factor; Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes (NSW) Pty Limited, Briginshaw v Briginshaw, Helton v Allen, Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch, Austin v Director General of Education, and Duncan v Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW and Anor considered; Held – the applicant during the course of her employment with the respondent has sustained an injury to her left shoulder; employment being the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the disease.
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 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 left shoulder arthroscopy, biceps tenodesis, synovectomy and manipulation surgery and associated expenses proposed by Dr Moopanar in his report dated 28 October 2024 is reasonably necessary treatment as a result of the injury sustained by the applicant with a deemed date of injury of 7 August 2024. 3. Pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act, the past medical expenses claimed by the applicant in the sum of $1,430.31 for general practitioner attendances at Workers Health are reasonably necessary treatment expenses as a result of the injury sustained by the applicant with a deemed date of injury of 7 August 2024. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Jacqueline Ann Springfield, the applicant has been employed on a full-time basis by the respondent, Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd, as a store person/team leader for over 28 years having commenced employment with the respondent in 1996.
The applicant’s work involves picking and packing orders of pharmaceutical products in boxes. The applicant also performs the role of team leader.
In the Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) a deemed date of injury of 7 August 2024 is pleaded and the type of injury is the aggravation, acceleration or exacerbation or deterioration of a disease process in respect of the left shoulder.
The injury description states:
“The Applicants employment with the respondent has required her to engage in repetitive handling and lifting of heavy loads in the capacity of (a) Pick Packer. From on or around late 2023-2024 the Applicant was made to work…

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 Springfield v Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Springfield v Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 439
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 439
Decision Date: 27 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Springfield lodged a claim against Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd for compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The claim pertained to an injury to Springfield's left shoulder and related treatment expenses. The case was heard in the relevant court, where it was necessary to determine whether Springfield's injury and the resulting treatment expenses were compensable under the Act. This required an assessment of the applicant's statements, other witness testimonies, medical reports, treatment records, correspondence, and other relevant materials.

The court had to consider the nature and cause of Springfield's injury, and whether Springfield's employment with the respondent was the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, or deterioration of the disease. The decision relied on several precedents, including Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes (NSW) Pty Limited, Briginshaw v Briginshaw, Helton v Allen, Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch, Austin v Director General of Education, and Duncan v Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW and Anor. These cases provided guidance on the application of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

After thorough examination of the evidence and applicable legal principles, the court found that Springfield sustained an injury to her left shoulder during the course of her employment with Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd. The court concluded that Springfield's employment was indeed the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, or deterioration of her condition. Consequently, the court held that Springfield's claim for workers' compensation was successful.

Orders