Star City Pty Limited v Hudson

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
STATUS: Decision confirmed on Appeal: Star City Pty Ltd v Hudson [2007] NSWCA 188
CITATION:		Star City Pty Limited v Hudson [2006] NSWWCCPD 288
APPELLANT:		Star City Pty Limited
RESPONDENT:		Liana Hudson
INSURER:		Self Insurer
FILE NUMBER:		WCC15875-05
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:		23 December 2005
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:		27 October 2006
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:		Notice of injury; notice of claim; sections 254 and 260 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:		Acting Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING:		On the papers
REPRESENTATION:		Appellant:		George Mallos
Respondent:		Steve Masselos & Co
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:		The decision of the Arbitrator dated 23 December 2005 is confirmed.
The Appellant Employer is to pay the Respondent Worker’s costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

1. On 10 January 2006 Star City Pty Limited (‘the Appellant Employer/Star City’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 23 December 2005.

1. The Respondent to the Appeal is Liana Hudson (‘the Respondent Worker/Ms Hudson’).

1. Ms Hudson was born on 15 February 1961.  She left school in year nine and initially worked in a clothing factory and then as a check out operator in a supermarket before leaving the work force to start and raise a family.  She returned to the work force as a cleaner before she started work with Star City as a croupier on 23 June 1999.  She was initially trained to deal blackjack but also worked games known as ‘Sic-Bo’, ‘Big Wheel’ and ‘stud poker’. 

1. In her statement of 31 May 2005 she described the work as rapid and repetitive.  When dealing cards she was required to perform highly repetitive grasping, reaching and manipulative movements with her hands, particularly her left hand.  In December 2002 she started to develop pain in her left wrist and forearm, and pins and needles in her left hand.  She attended on her regular general practitioner, Dr Cheiw, on 19 June 2003 complaining of pain in her left wrist, forearm and up to her left elbow.  He certified her unfit for work for several days because of her condition.  He also referred her to Dr Dave, orthopaedic surgeon at Liverpool, and started her on physiotherapy. 

1. Ms Hudson completed and submitted a claim form on 24 June 2003 alleging she had sustained a “repetitive strain to left wrist” as a result of the “repetitive dealer action” required in her job over time. Her claim was accepted and an Injury Management Plan prepared. There is no evidence to suggest that there was a ‘provisional acceptance of liability’ as is open under section 267 of Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’).

1. A Return to Work Plan was prepared by Star City starting on 27 June 2003 with provision for suitable duties with the objective of returning to full duties as a dealer.…