Stoermer v Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd - [2021] NSWPIC 27

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Stoermer v Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 27
APPLICANT:	Wolfgang Stoermer
RESPONDENT:	Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Mr Paul Sweeney
DATE OF DECISION:	16 March 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Claim for weekly compensation for alleged back injury caused by nature of the worker’s employment; where worker did not report injury, seek medical treatment, or lose time prior to cessation of his employment for intercurrent medical condition; where respondent’s witnesses corroborate complaints of back pain by the worker while performing heavy work; where near unanimous medical evidence that worker suffered injury; Held- finding of exacerbation of pre-existing degenerative disease; award for worker on the basis of partial incapacity.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant suffered injury to his low back arising out of and in the course of his employment on and prior to 8 August 2018 namely the exacerbation of pre-existing degenerative changes. 2. The applicant’s employment was the main contributing factor to exacerbation of the pre-existing degenerative changes. 3. The notional date of injury for the purposes of section 16 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) is 9 August 2018 the first date of incapacity. 4. As a result of the injury the applicant has been unable to perform arduous work involving lifting, bending, operating vibrating machinery, and driving heavy vehicles. 5. It is agreed that the applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings was $1,500 per week at all material times. 6. In some suitable employment as that term is defined by section 32A of the 1987 Act the applicant has been able to earn this $760 per week from 9 August 2018 to 31 December 2019 and $798 from 1 January 2020. 7. Award for the applicant pursuant to sections 36 and 37 of the 1987 Act as follows: · $665 per week from 9 August 2018 to 8 November 2018; · $402 per week from 9 November 2018 from 9 November 2018 to 4 February 2021. 8. Liberty to the parties to apply in relation to the above calculations. 9. Respondent to pay medical and hospital expenses pursuant to section 60 in respect of injury to the applicant’s back.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

Before 6 August 2018, Wolfgang Stoermer (the applicant) was employed by Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd (the respondent) at its Coffs Harbour branch as a yardman/labourer. In August 2016, the applicant developed a psychological condition. He ceased work on 8 August 2018 and sought medical attention for his illness. He has not worked since that time.
He alleges that his psychological illness was caused or materially aggravated by interpersonal conflict and several specific incidents which took place in the course of his employment. The respondent, however, disputes that the applicant suffered a psychological injury and disputes that it is liable to pay compensation to the applicant for an incapacity for work connected with his psychological condition.
Subsequently, the applicant alleged that he was also incapacitated for work by reason of a back injury resulting…

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 Stoermer v Coates Hire Operations 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 27
Decision Date: 16 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stoermer v Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd involved a claim for workers' compensation for an alleged back injury sustained by the claimant during the course of his employment. The dispute was heard and decided by the court of first instance, which had to determine whether the claimant was entitled to weekly compensation for the injury. The claimant argued that his employment activities had caused or exacerbated a pre-existing back condition, while the respondent contested the causal link and the extent of the injury. The court was tasked with resolving the factual disputes and assessing the medical evidence presented by both parties.

The legal issues before the court were whether the claimant's employment activities caused or exacerbated his back condition and, if so, to what extent. The court had to weigh the medical evidence and witness statements to determine the causative link between the claimant's employment and the alleged injury. The respondent argued that the claimant's failure to report the injury, seek medical treatment, or lose time from work due to the injury prior to his employment ending for an unrelated medical condition undermined the claim. Conversely, the claimant presented evidence that his work activities involved heavy lifting and other strenuous tasks that would have exacerbated any pre-existing condition.

The court found that the claimant had suffered an exacerbation of a pre-existing degenerative disease due to his employment activities. The court accepted the near unanimous medical evidence that the claimant had an injury, despite his failure to report it or seek treatment during his employment. The respondent's witnesses corroborated the claimant's complaints of back pain during the performance of heavy work, which supported the claim. The court awarded the claimant compensation for partial incapacity, reflecting the impact of the exacerbation on his ability to work. The final orders of the court were not detailed in the text but would likely include a determination of the amount of compensation payable to the claimant.

Orders