Succar v Crate N Packing Services Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 242

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Succar v Crate N Packing Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 242
APPLICANT:	Succar
RESPONDENT:	Crate N Packing Services Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Diana Benk
DATE OF DECISION:	2 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether the applicant suffered consequential conditions to his right little finger and right wrist because of an accepted injury to the index, ring and middle fingers; gaps and inconsistencies in the medical evidence; the value of contemporaneous evidence; Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (Constructions) Pty Ltd; Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles; Held – award for the respondent for claims relating to consequential right little finger condition; found the applicant has a consequential condition of the right wrist as a result of accepted right index, ring and middle fingers; matter referred to a Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment (WPI).
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant suffered injury to the right ring, middle and index fingers on 31 October 2022 with resultant scarring. 2. The applicant has a consequential condition to the right wrist resulting from injury on 31 October 2022. 3. Award respondent with respect to the claim of a consequential condition to the right little finger. 4. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) as follows; Date of injury: 31 October 2022. Method of assessment: WPI. Body system/part: Right index finger; Right middle finger; Right ring finger; Right wrist; Scarring (Temski)

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

As a result of injury sustained with Crate N Packing Services Pty Ltd (the respondent),
Mr Succar (the applicant) claims lump sum compensation for permanent impairment.
The respondent’s insurer accepts liability for injury to the right index and middle fingers with associated scarring but disputes any injury or consequential claim to the right little and ring fingers and right wrist.
This resulted in an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) being filed in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission). The matter underwent the usual case management pathway ultimately proceeding to arbitration where Mr Perry of Counsel instructed by Ms Nehme represented the applicant. Mr Stiles of Counsel instructed by Mr Wares represented the respondent. Mr Ye was the insurer’s representative.
The issue for determination is:
(a) did the applicant sustain an injury/consequential condition to the right ring and little fingers and right wrist.
The evidence before the Commission was limited to the ARD and the Reply and their annexures.
The parties agreed subject to findings, the matter was to be remitted to the President for referral to a medical assessor.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS

After notification of conciliation impasse and prior to arbitration, Mr Perry invited me to inspect the applicant’s right hand. Following consent of the respondent, I indicated that I would view the hand subject to the following caveats: I am not medically qualified, my observations would not influence any findings, carry weight or be applied in the overall discernment of…

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 Succar v Crate N Packing Services Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Succar v Crate N Packing Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 242
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 242
Decision Date: 2 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Succar v Crate N Packing Services Pty Ltd involved a claim by the applicant against the respondent, Crate N Packing Services Pty Ltd, for workers' compensation. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had suffered consequential conditions to his right little finger and right wrist as a result of an accepted injury to his right index, ring, and middle fingers. The case was heard in the Workers' Compensation Commission of Queensland.

The legal issues that the court was required to determine included the existence of consequential conditions in the right little finger and right wrist, the weight to be given to the medical evidence presented, and the consistency and reliability of that evidence. The applicant argued that the injuries to the right little finger and right wrist were a direct consequence of the original injury to the right hand. The respondent, however, contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the applicant's claims.

The court found that there were gaps and inconsistencies in the medical evidence provided by the applicant. The contemporaneous evidence, which was deemed more reliable, did not support the applicant's claims. The court also considered relevant legal principles from cases such as Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (Constructions) Pty Ltd, and Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles. Ultimately, the court determined that the applicant did not have a consequential condition of the right little finger but did have a consequential condition of the right wrist resulting from the accepted injury to the right index, ring, and middle fingers. The matter was referred to a Medical Assessor for an assessment of whole person impairment (WPI).

The final orders of the court were that the claims relating to the right little finger were dismissed, while the claim for the consequential condition of the right wrist was upheld. The case was referred to a Medical Assessor for the assessment of whole person impairment (WPI).

Orders