Stalinescu v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)
[2015] QIRC 167
•16 September 2015
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Stalinescu v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 167 |
PARTIES: | Stalinescu, Lidia v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) |
CASE NO: | WC/2015/33 |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal against a decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) |
DELIVERED ON: | 16 September 2015 |
HEARING DATES: | 13 August 2015 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
MEMBER: | Industrial Commissioner Thompson |
| ORDERS: | 1. The Appeal is dismissed. 2. The Decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) dated 12 January 2015 is confirmed. 3. The claim is not one for acceptance. 4. The Appellant is to pay the Regulator's costs of and incidental to this Appeal to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of a further application to the Commission. |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS' COMPENSATION ‑ APPEAL AGAINST DECISION ‑ Decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) ‑ Appellant bears onus of proof ‑ Standard of proof ‑ Balance of probabilities ‑ Witness evidence ‑ Appellant was a "worker" - No evidence to support that the nature of work performed over the period of time in question had a causal relationship to any personal injury suffered by the Appellant - On balance of probabilities evidence does not support a finding the Appellant suffered a right shoulder injury with bursitis that was caused over a period |
| CASES: | Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 11, s 32, s 550, s 570 Industrial Relations Act 1999 s 320 Barclay v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1994) (No. C29 of 1994) Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland v Barclay (1995) 148 QGIG 37 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 |
| APPEARANCES: | Mr M. Smith of Counsel, instructed by Parker Simmonds Lawyers for the Appellant. |
Decision
Lidia Stalinescu (Appellant) lodged a Notice of Appeal with the Industrial Registrar on 12 February 2015 pursuant to s 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against a decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (the Regulator) released on 12 January 2015.
The decision of the Regulator was to confirm the decision of the Insurer (WorkCover) to reject an application by the Appellant for compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Act.
Relevant Legislation
The Legislation pertinent to this Appeal is 32 of the Act:
"32 Meaning of injury
(1)An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if -
(a)for an injury other than a psychiatric or psychological disorder - the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury."
Nature of Appeal
The Appeal to the Commission is by way of a hearing de novo in which the onus of proof falls upon the Appellant.
Standard of Proof
The standard of proof upon which an Appeal of this nature must be determined is that of "on the balance of probabilities".
Evidence
In the course of the proceedings, evidence was provided by two witnesses.
The Commission, in deciding to précis the evidence of the witnesses, and submissions, notes that all the material has, for the purposes of this decision, been considered in its entirety.
Witness Lists
The witnesses for the Appellant were:
· Stalinescu; and
· Dr Daniela Alexander (Dr Alexander).
Appellant
Stalinescu
Stalinescu, currently unemployed, had previously worked as an Assistant in Nursing with Ozcare at Parkwood Gardens commencing as a causal in 2010 converting to a permanent position in 2011. The duties undertaken by her were described as:
· listening to handover from Registered Nurses;
· checking wards for patient safety;
· stacking trolleys;
· answering call bells; and
· taking patients to toilets and back.
The work was said to be physically strenuous and required her to work as a "floater" between two floors on permanent night shift. Work of a "non-floating" nature was said to be easier because you were on one floor only whereas the "floater" position was "strenuous and very stressful".
On 31 March 2014 she attended Dr Alexander as a result of suffering an injury at the end of March 2014 working in high care. The injury sustained was to her shoulder and left ankle. Prior to commencing work with Ozcare she had not experienced any shoulder problems.
Under cross-examination the Appellant did not accept that the night shift required less work due to residents being asleep [Transcript p. 1-6]. On her role as a "floater" she would be required to work between two wards to assist other staff for the purposes of heavy lifting, pushing hoists and moving patients [Transcript p. 1-7]. The incident that gave claim to the matter before the Commission occurred on 28 March 2014 when she was attempting to return a patient to bed, she slipped causing some strain. Prior to that date she had never reported any injury to her right shoulder or had her work duties modified in any way to accommodate any disability [Transcript p. 1-7].
Stalinescu first lodged a claim for workers' compensation on 31 March 2014 which was not the claim before the Commission with the claim the subject of this Appeal lodged on 4 June 2014 [Transcript p. 1-8]. The Appellant was taken to each of the workers' compensation claim forms where she confirmed:
· the claim lodged on 31 March 2014 [Exhibit 1] identified the injury as "Bursitis, tendon tear, joint dysfunction" having occurred at "2.40 am on 28 March 2014" with the cause of injury being recorded as "Caused by trying to help a resident in the process of falling" [Transcript p. 1-10];
· the second claim was lodged on 4 June 2014 [Exhibit 2] identified the injury happening in the following way:
"Note: The injury occurred over a period of time since working at Ozcare. See contract. Ten shifts a fortnight for three years, permanent basis"; and
· on how the injury happened it was recorded:
"See note 2. Tasks performed were repetitive. sa. Residents' handling hard, bed making, showering, resident transfers with machine".
Stalinescu confirmed the claim for workers' compensation lodged on 4 June 2014 was the claim subject of these proceedings [Transcript p. 1-12].
The first claim according to the Appellant was rejected and the second claim made no reference to the incident that occurred on 28 March 2014 but related to an injury over a period of time prior to 28 March 2014 [Transcript p. 1-12]. Stalinescu confirmed that since attending Dr Alexander on 31 March 2014 she had also seen two medical specialists, both Orthopaedic Surgeons. Evidence was given that one of the Orthopaedic Surgeons Dr Kalamaras was treating her for an injury sustained out of work in the latter part of 2014 and also for the "first injury" [Transcript p. 1-13].
Stalinescu completed an incident report [Exhibit 3] for the 28 March 2014 incident in which she stated:
"Resident landed on the floor whilst turning in the process of transferring from toilet chair onto her bed by lowering too quick. Carer was trying to help. Jerky movement caused after salvaging resident resulting in sore shoulder, twisted ankle. Aggravated 2 days later."
The evidence was that she felt the injury on 29 March 2014 [Transcript p. 1‑15]. The incident report was completed contemporaneous to the event on 28 March 2014 [Transcript p. 1-16].
Dr Alexander
Dr Alexander, a General Practitioner, first saw Stalinescu as a patient on 27 July 2009. The doctor provided two handwritten reports to WorkCover on 7 May and 16 June 2014 which were tendered in the proceedings as Exhibits 4 and 5 respectively.
The Reports contained responses from Dr Alexander to questions raised by WorkCover which included:
· 7 May 2014 - Stalinescu had suffered a repetitive physical injury which led to bursitis as a result of three years of physical work. There had been no pre-existing condition; and
· 16 June 2014 - Stalinescu reported having bad pains in right shoulder which was aggravated after handling a resident one night at work. Repetitive physical strain was sustained over a period of time with aggravation after handling the resident one-on-one at work.
Dr Alexander went on to give evidence that:
· she diagnosed Stalinescu with right shoulder bursitis that was work‑related;
· it was a repetitive strain injury at work from a more acute injury at work on 28 March 2014;
· the injury was an "acute or chronic sort of thing";
· bursitis is an inflammation of the space between the tendons around the shoulder that does not appear overnight, developing over time;
· an acute strain can actually "tip it over" and make it manifest that way; and
· bursitis generally occurs in occupations that have repetitive handling, lifting, positioning of patients.
Dr Alexander had not seen or heard anything from Stalinescu that had caused her to change the diagnosis.
Under cross-examination Dr Alexander gave evidence that it was her understanding of events that there was a particular incident on 28 March 2014 at which time Stalinescu became symptomatic. Prior to that date with one exception her clinical notes make no reference to any complaint of the right shoulder [Transcript p. 1-20]. In the clinical notes reference was made to shoulder pains at a consultation on 27 September 2012 with the notes not identifying a particular shoulder [Transcript p. 1-20]. Dr Alexander in September 2012 did not carry out any investigations regarding the shoulder complaint and conceded that without having conducted investigations at the time there was no way to tell whether it was related to her bursitis [Transcript p. 1-21].
The first attendance in respect of the work incident was on 31 March 2014 where Stalinescu reported two issues being a twisted left ankle and right shoulder pain. With regards to the shoulder Dr Alexander thought that maybe the acromioclavicular joint was an issue or it could have been the AC joint which is why she was sent for an ultrasound. Other considerations were a possible ruptured tendon or a cervical (the neck) component [Transcript p. 1-22].
An X-ray was taken in respect of Stalinescu's right shoulder on 1 April 2014 which Dr Alexander acknowledged contained the following findings:
· a number of findings were made in respect of the cervical spine in respect of degenerative change;
· in respect of the right shoulder it was found:
·glenohumeral joint normal;
·AC joint normal; and
·no soft tissue calcifications demonstrated.
Dr Alexander confirmed that on 1 April 2014 the X-ray results indicated there was no pathology for the right shoulder [Transcript p. 1-23].
Dr Alexander ordered an ultrasound be performed from which a report was generated on 4 April 2014. Dr Alexander agreed that the summary of the doctor who had conducted the ultrasound gave an overall impression that:
"No evidence of significant rotator cuff tear tendonitis. Minimal local distension of the subacromial subdeltoid bursa, with a degree of pain on dynamic abduction manoeuvres which may reflect low grade bursitis".
Dr Alexander accepted that this was a definitive diagnosis but had said there "may" be reflected a low grade bursitis but that the summary did not "read normal either" [Transcript p. 1-24].
Dr Alexander gave evidence that conclusively Stalinescu had (apart from September 2012) never reported any significant pain to her shoulder prior to 31 March 2014. There had been no report of any such pain between September 2012 and 31 March 2014 [Transcript p. 1-25]. In her report of 16 June 2014 [Exhibit 5] she had indicated "there was no past history of shoulder problems that I am aware of" [Transcript p. 1-26].
Dr Alexander acknowledged as a General Practitioner she would defer to the opinions of persons such as Dr Kalamaras and Dr Cleaver [Transcript p. 1-26] accepting that on 1 July 2014 Dr Kalamaras had formed the opinion that Stalinescu's pain in her right shoulder was actually emanating from her neck [Transcript p. 1-28]. Stalinescu had been referred to Dr Cleaver, an Orthopaedic Surgeon with a spine specialty, who wrote to Dr Alexander on 3 November 2014 in which he opined that none of her symptoms were coming from the glenohumeral joint or the subacromial space going on to state:
"She does, on the other hand have degenerative disc disease at C5 and 6 and the question is, are her symptoms from that." [Transcript p. 1-30]
After a time Dr Alexander did concede that neither of the specialists made a clinical finding to any pathology that might give rise to the symptoms of the right shoulder [Transcript p. 1-31]. Dr Alexander's opinion was that the MRI did not "back up" that the shoulder injury was caused by another pathology [Transcript p. 1-32].
In re-examination Dr Alexander confirmed that a copy of Dr Cleaver's report to WorkCover had not been forwarded to her.
Submissions
Appellant
There was no dispute regarding Stalinescu's status as a "worker" or that she suffered a right shoulder injury with bursitis with the issue for determination being whether the right shoulder injury with bursitis was caused over a period of time or by a specific event.
Stalinescu gave evidence of being involved in heavy work throughout her employment with the employer for quite a period of time with her role heavier than that of a nurse. The only medical evidence was from Dr Alexander with neither of the specialists (Drs Kalamaras or Cleaver) called to give evidence meaning that their reports ought to be afforded minimal weight. Any criticism of Stalinescu in respect of her completion of claims forms should be considered on the basis of her having no medical training to decide upon the injury or what should be included in the forms.
Dr Alexander maintained through her cross-examination that Stalinescu suffered an injury to the right shoulder with bursitis that was caused over a period of time in her employment. There was no reason not to accept the evidence of Dr Alexander on the basis of causation with there being a connection between the injury and the cause. The fact that the treating doctor finds a causal link should be sufficient to satisfy the Commission that the Appeal be allowed, the claim be accepted and consequential orders be issued.
Regulator
The Regulator conceded that Stalinescu was, for the purposes of the Act, a "worker" but it was not conceded that she had sustained a bursitis.
This Appeal was in respect of a claim for a right shoulder injury said to have occurred over a period of time and was made in the context of a second claim of which one is yet to be determined by the Commission. It is the second Appeal which is before the Commission.
The submission cited the matter of Barclay v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland[1] where the claimant initially lodged a claim form which set out a certain set of circumstances which were said to give rise to injury. These circumstances were subsequently admitted to be false but in the course of the proceedings before an Industrial Magistrate an alternate set of circumstances were provided and the Magistrate embarked on an inquiry around whether an injury could arise in the course of that alternative set of circumstances and made a finding that it did.
[1] Barclay v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1994) (No. C29 of 1994)
When the matter was challenged on Appeal, Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland v Barclay[2], the President of the Industrial Court made a number of observations about that scenario that included:
"The case is somewhat removed from those in which there are mere inaccuracies in detail of the relevant incident. The incident described in the Form 4 did not happen and the injury is alleged to have arisen in a different way from that described in the form. It could hardly be expected of the Board that it unilaterally investigate possible scenarios which information coming into its possession suggested in the absence of a clear indication that the worker intended to press the proposition that there was some other basis upon which an entitlement to compensation arose."
In that case there was only a claim based on the falsified version of events and the claim was rejected by the Board, going on the President stated:
"The application that the Magistrate was called on to determine was the claim in the application which was proved to be false. The Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to find on that application that there was work related injury which occurred in another way on another day."
[2] Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland v Barclay (1995) 148 QGIG 37
In essence the cited authority supports the proposition that in this Appeal the Commission is required to consider whether there was an injury in the form of an over period of time injury to Stalinescu's right shoulder. In the second claim form which is the over period of time claim there was no mention of the 28 March 2014. On one interpretation of the facts it could be said that the Commission is limited in the course of the Appeal to consider the events from when Stalinescu commenced employment in 2010 until 27 March 2014, preceding the date the specific incident is said to have occurred. It cannot be avoided that the incident on 28 March 2014 was the time she became symptomatic in her right shoulder.
The second interpretation is that the 28 March 2014 date is relevant only when it's said to be a triggering point of aggravation for an over time injury. Either way the Commission is limited in terms of its consideration of the matter.
There were clear concessions from Stalinescu that she had not prior to 28 March 2014 reported any pain to her doctor, any injury in the workplace, or that her workplace duties were modified in any way at all. There was some reference to having massages back in 2012 but no evidence led about that or what the causes were and what was being treated. There was no clear evidence that Stalinescu was suffering pain prior to 28 March 2014 other than an oblique reference in one note in September 2012 and for an over period of time claim excluding the events of 28 March 2014, for an injury to the right shoulder being accepted there has to be some level of symptoms experienced and of that there is no such evidence. In these circumstances this is a fundamental flaw in the Appeal that would provide a compelling ground to dismiss the appeal as there was no evidence of an injury suffered by her during the relevant period.
There was no reliable evidence that the symptoms that emerged on 28 March 2014 were as a result of a repetitive strain or over period of time injury.
In terms of Dr Alexander's evidence it was unusual to the extent that as a General Practitioner she was so lacking in deference to the views of the Specialist letters contained in the clinical file [Exhibit 6]. There was acknowledgement that the Specialists had not given evidence however the point was made that Dr Cleaver was originally on the Appellant's list of witnesses and not called by them, so inferences may cancel each other out. Dr Alexander's evidence through the production of the clinical records was clear that there was no significant history of right shoulder pain prior to 31 March 2014 and in respect of her comment regarding the consultation of September 2012 it did not identify a significant condition with the doctor at the time not even bothering to examine her.
Dr Alexander at times was prepared to speculate "uphill and down dale" about what might have been going on with Stalinescu's right shoulder but ultimately had been dragged "kicking and screaming" to the concession that she had no evidence of any history of shoulder pain prior to 31 March 2014. There is speculation in her initial clinical notes on 31 March 2014 that there might be a relationship but also speculates it might be an AC joint injury or it might be related to the cervical spine. Neither of the Specialists had identified any pathology on the right shoulder with Dr Kalamaras being convinced in his letter to Dr Alexander that the neck was the source of the pain. Dr Cleaver it was submitted was less conclusive but at the same time he does not conclude that Stalinescu's symptoms were in any way related to any right shoulder pathology.
Dr Alexander as a matter of routine, in light of the symptoms reported, referred Stalinescu for an ultrasound with the report contained in the clinical notes. According to the submission the report stated that it "may reflect low-grade bursitis" which is not something that might lead to a finding on the balance of probabilities that bursitis was present.
The Commission it was submitted was limited in terms of what it might consider being that of an over period of time injury to a right shoulder. There was no reliable evidence before the proceeding that would support a finding of bursitis as alleged. The matter regarding a single incident claim remains before the Commission and is not a matter the Commission should focus upon. The paucity of the evidence supporting the over period of time injury to the right shoulder would compel that the Appeal being dismissed.
Conclusion
It was not of contention that at all relevant times Stalinescu was for the purposes of s 11 of the Act a "worker".
In terms of the matter before the Commission, by way of clarity, the application for workers' compensation the subject of this determination was lodged by Stalinescu on 4 June 2014 which identified the injury as "occurring over a period of time" with the nature of the injury being a right shoulder injury. Prior to the lodgement of the abovementioned application for compensation, Stalinescu had lodged an application for compensation on 31 March 2014 in which the injury was identified as "caused by trying to help a resident in the process of falling" with the nature of the injury being "bursitis, tendon tear, joint dysfunction".
The Commission was informed that the first application for compensation was rejected by the Insurer and is the subject of Appeal but had not at the time of hearing been before the Tribunal. Nevertheless the position is that the first application for workers' compensation has not been the subject of any consideration in the course of this Appeal and is not a matter that has any standing or relevance in this determination.
The matter for determination is whether Stalinescu suffered a right shoulder injury with bursitis that was caused over a period of time.
Medical Evidence
The only direct medical evidence before the proceedings was that of Dr Alexander, a General Practitioner who had treated Stalinescu as far back as 27 July 2009 and had (in terms of the work injury) first seen her on 31 March 2014. Clinical Notes tendered before the Commission [Exhibit 6] from the consultation on 31 March 2014 recorded:
"They had staff cuts at work - one person per floor
She felt very stressed in the last months.
Works night shift - was by herself on the floor. The RN was doing the tab
A resident on Friday am - 3am - wanted to go to the toilet. Lidia brought her back to the bed from the toilet but did not manage to get on the bed properly and fell and had a skin tear.
The resident was not well with a UTI.Lidia twisted her L ankle in the process of helping the resident.
Yesterday she had some pain - L ankle - walking around.
Does a lot of walking at work. Work is more demanding when she is in high level care.
She also gets R shoulder pains as she handles residence in high care a lot - turning them over, assisting with mobilityPain seems to be Ac joint related and there may be a cervical component involved.
WC initial - to apply
Rest arm for 10 days
Imaging
Takes Panad and Nurofen."
Dr Alexander provided two Reports to WorkCover in which she stated:
· 7 May 2014 - Stalinescu had suffered a repetitive physical injury which led to bursitis as a result of three years of physical work. There had been no pre-existing condition; and
· 16 June 2014 - Stalinescu reported having bad pains in right shoulder which was aggravated after handling a resident one night at work. Repetitive physical strain was sustained over a period of time with aggravation after handling the resident one-on-one at work.
Dr Alexander's diagnosis was that Stalinescu had suffered an injury being right shoulder bursitis that was work-related.
There had been referrals to Medical Specialists Drs Kalamaras and Dr Cleaver both of whom were not called to give evidence in the proceedings however correspondence from each of the doctors formed part of Stalinescu's clinical file and was raised with Dr Alexander in the course of cross-examination. Dr Alexander acknowledged that Dr Kalamaras had formed the opinion that Stalinescu's pain in her right shoulder was actually emanating from her neck and Dr Cleaver had opined that none of her symptoms were coming from the glenohumeral joint or the sabacromial space but Stalinescu did in fact have degenerative disc disease at C5 and C6.
Dr Alexander conceded that as a General Practitioner she would defer to persons such as Dr Kalamaras and Dr Cleaver with regards to their medical opinions as opposed to her own.
In the initial treatment of Stalinescu in March/April 2014 Dr Alexander ordered that an ultrasound be performed on her and in a Report (dated 4 April 2014) Dr Alexander agreed that a summary in that Report provided the impression that
"No evidence of significant rotator cuff tear tendonitis. Minimal local distension of the subacromial subdeltoid bursa, with a degree of pain on dynamic abduction manoeuvres which may reflect low grade bursitis".
The Commission accepts the argument of the Appellant's Counsel that in the absence of direct evidence from both Drs Kalamaras and Cleaver that the level of weightage given to the material generated by them should be lessor on the basis of not being available for cross-examination however that does not have the effect of disregarding their opinions per se. Certainly there is a consistency in the material from the Specialists that the pain in Stalinescu's shoulder has its origins in areas that would not support the diagnosis of her suffering right shoulder bursitis. That scenario was not discounted by Dr Alexander who upon examination of Stalinescu on 31 March 2014 recorded that the AC joint pain may have a cervical component which is consistent with Dr Kalamaras who opined the right shoulder pain could be emanating from her neck.
Dr Alexander, in giving evidence that Stalinescu suffered an over period of time injury, diagnosed the injury as being "right shoulder bursitis" that was work-related however that diagnosis of bursitis is not supported by either of the Specialists (Drs Kalamaras and Cleaver) and the ultrasound taken of Stalinescu contemporaneously in or around early April 2014 stated that there "may" be a low grade bursitis but fails to offer a diagnosis beyond that of "may" which on its own would not be sufficient to satisfy the requisite standard of proof of "on the balance of probabilities" that Dr Alexander's diagnosis of bursitis could be accepted in the circumstances.
In the matter of Briginshaw v Briginshaw[3] the High Court on the balance of probabilities test said the Tribunal was required to:
"…feel an actual persuasion of its occurrence or existence before it can be found."
[3] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
In this case the Commission has not been persuaded of an occurrence or existence that Stalinescu suffered an injury in the form of "right shoulder bursitis".
The Commission whilst having acknowledged that the medical opinions of Drs Kalamaras and Cleaver must be considered in the circumstances of there being no direct evidence in the proceedings from the doctors, is still entitled to take such material into account based upon s 320 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 in which it states:
"320 Basis of decisions of the commission and magistrates
…(2) In proceedings, the commission or Industrial Magistrates Court -
(a)is not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence; and
(b)may inform itself on a matter it considers appropriate in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
(3)Also, the commission or Industrial Magistrates Court is to be governed in its decisions by equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case having regard to the interests of -
(a) the persons immediately concerned; and
(b) the community as a whole."Further the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 in reference to the Powers of the Court at s 570 of that Act regarding an appeal refers to the rules of evidence in the following terms:
"570 Powers of court on appeal
(1)In deciding an appeal, the court -
(a)has the same powers as the decision-maker; and
(b)is not bound by the rules of evidence."
The material before the proceedings regarding the opinions of Drs Kalamaras and Cleaver does not support the diagnosis of Dr Alexander regarding Stalinescu having suffered an injury being that of right shoulder bursitis and it was the case that in the course of cross-examination Dr Alexander accepted that the opinions of the Medical Specialists were in effect opinions she as a General Practitioner would defer to.
I am satisfied that it had not been established that Stalinescu suffered an injury being right shoulder bursitis in the period relevant to this Appeal and further there was no evidence before the proceedings of the required standing to support that the nature of the work performed by Stalinescu over the period of time in question had a causal relationship to any personal injury said to be suffered by Stalinescu.
Finding
On consideration of the evidence, material and submissions before the proceeding, I make the following findings:
· Stalinescu was at all relevant times pursuant to s 11 of the Act, a "worker"; and
· the evidence does not on the balance of probabilities support a finding that Stalinescu suffered a right shoulder injury with bursitis that was caused over a period of time pursuant to s 32 of the Act.
Orders
The following Orders are therefore made:
· the Appeal is dismissed;
· the decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) dated 12 January 2015 is confirmed with the injury suffered by Stalinescu not being one for acceptance;
· Stalinescu is to pay the Regulator's costs of and incidental to the Appeal to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.
I order accordingly.
0
2
2