Stanford v Channon Refrigeration Pty Ltd - [2021] NSWPIC 281

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Stanford v Channon Refrigeration Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 281
APPLICANT:	Stephen Stanford
RESPONDENT:	Channon Refrigeration Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	9 August 2021
DATE OF DECISION:	Elizabeth Beilby
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Claim for consequential condition; cervical spine; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates and Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes considered; Held- burden of proof not discharged; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Award for the respondent in respect of the claim for a consequential condition in the cervical spine.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Stephen Stanford (the applicant) has been employed as a refrigeration mechanic ever since he left school in Year 10.
In 2006 he was employed by Channon Refrigeration Pty Ltd (the respondent) as a refrigeration mechanic on a full-time basis. Essentially his job would require him to attend a client’s premise and perform repairs upon refrigeration devices which would include replacing gas cylinders and other motors.
On 18 December 2017 the applicant was directed to attend the Excelsior Hotel to repair a refrigeration device. Whilst the applicant was preparing to hose down the machine, he was walking with a hose and slipped over and landed on his left shoulder. He observed a sharp pain in his left shoulder but continued to work regardless of his pain and finished the task.
The applicant attended upon his general practitioner, Dr Hakim on that same day who referred him for an x-ray and CT scan of his left shoulder. The x-ray revealed a tear in the supraspinatus tendon as well as bursitis.
Dr Hakim, referred the applicant to see a specialist, Dr Rahme (Orthopaedic Surgeon).
Dr Rahme recommended surgery and on 5 February 2018 the applicant underwent a left shoulder subacromial decompression rotator cuff repair.
The applicant underwent physiotherapy for approximately four sessions and had his left shoulder in a sling for a period of four weeks. He then continued with his physiotherapy for a period of 12 months.
The applicant says[1] that he began observing symptoms in his cervical spine after his sling was removed in March 2018. The applicant says he reported these symptoms to his physiotherapist and to Dr Rahme. The applicant says in his statement that Dr Rahme advised him that the neck pain was understandable due to the nature of the fall.
[1] Statement dated 16 October 2020
The applicant returned to work in September 2018 on light duties.
The parties agree that there is no recorded complaint of symptomatology in the cervical spine before the report of Dr Bodel
The applicant now claims a consequential condition in his cervical spine arising from wearing a sling and guarding.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issue remains in dispute:
(a) does the applicant have a consequential condition in the cervical spine.

Matters not in dispute

There is no dispute that the applicant sustained an injury to his left shoulder.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application 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 Stanford v Channon Refrigeration 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: [2021] NSWPIC 281
Decision Date: 9 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stanford brought a claim against Channon Refrigeration Pty Ltd in the Industrial Court of Queensland, seeking compensation for a work-related injury that resulted in a cervical spine condition. The primary issue for the court was whether Stanford had successfully demonstrated that the cervical spine condition was a direct consequence of his employment, thereby warranting compensation. The court had to determine if the burden of proof had been met in accordance with established legal principles, particularly referencing the cases of Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates and Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes.

The court carefully evaluated the evidence presented regarding the onset and progression of Stanford's cervical spine condition. It examined whether the condition was primarily due to his employment activities or if there were other contributing factors. The court assessed the medical evidence and expert opinions to ascertain whether the condition was work-related, considering both the direct and indirect impact of the employment on the condition. In applying the precedents from Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates and Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, the court found that the burden of proof had not been discharged, as Stanford failed to demonstrate a clear causal link between his employment and the cervical spine condition.

Following its analysis, the court concluded that Stanford did not meet the required standard of proof to substantiate his claim. Consequently, the court dismissed Stanford's application for compensation and ruled in favour of Channon Refrigeration Pty Ltd. The court found that the claimant had not established that the cervical spine condition was a direct consequence of his employment, thereby upholding the respondent's position. The court ordered that Stanford's claim for compensation be dismissed.

Orders