Taesali v CHEP Australia Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 227

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Taesali v CHEP Australia Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 227
APPLICANT:	Marieta Taesali
RESPONDENT:	CHEP Australia Limited
MEMBER:	John Wynyard
DATE OF DECISION:	26 May 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly benefits, surgery, and section 60 expenses by worker with a 10-year history of hard work; whether right shoulder injured in face of respondent medical expert saying that injury not work-related; whether the right knee had been injured in the face of the respondent medical expert’s view that injury and pathology not work-related; whether applicant’s expert infringed the principles of expert evidence; Held – respondent expert opinion rejected as he did not consider the question of aggravation of the underlying pathology in the knee; expert had not seen recent MRI of the shoulder which showed relevant pathology; generally the respondent expert failed to explain his opinions; consequential back injury not considered by respondent expert; reliance on clinical notes not helpful to respondent; Mason v Demasi, and Qannadian v Bartter Enterprises Pty Limited considered and applied; applicant expert evidence preferred; ACW v ACX considered and applied; award applicant on all claims.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission finds: 1. Mr Taesali injured his right shoulder and right knee on a deemed date of 17 July 2023. 2. Mr Taesali suffered a consequential lumbar spine condition on the same date. 3. The proposed surgery of an arthroscopic meniscectomy, chondroplasty and debridement to the right knee is reasonably necessary. The Commission orders: 1. The respondent will pay the applicant weekly payments of compensation as set out in paragraph 163 hereof. Liberty to apply is granted as to the period claimed. 2. The respondent will pay the applicant’s s 60 expenses upon production of accounts, receipts and/or HIC documentation. It will also pay the costs of and associated with the proposed surgery in accordance with the relevant SIRA charges. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

Background

Marieta Taesali, the applicant, brings an application for payment of weekly compensation and s 60 expenses together with a declaration that the proposed surgery to the right knee is reasonably necessary as a result of injuries he sustained whilst doing repetitive work for the respondent, CHEP Australia Limited.
Dispute notices were issued and the Application to Resolve a Dispute was duly lodged.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a)    Did Mr Taesali suffer injury to his right shoulder?
(b)    Did Mr Taesali suffer injury to his right knee?
(c)    If so, is the proposed surgery to the right knee reasonably necessary?

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

This matter was heard in person on 23 April 2025. The applicant was represented by
Mr Steve Hickey of counsel, instructed by Ms Jessica Sharma from Messrs Masselos & Co Lawyers. The respondent was represented by Mr Daniel Stiles of counsel, instructed by
Ms Laura Beatty from Messrs Spark Helmore Lawyers. The insurer was…

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 Taesali v CHEP Australia Ltd

Details

AGLC: Taesali v CHEP Australia Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 227
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 227
Decision Date: 26 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Taesali v CHEP Australia Ltd, the applicant sought weekly benefits, surgery, and section 60 expenses under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The applicant, with a ten-year history of hard work, claimed that his right shoulder and right knee were injured during the course of his employment. The respondent contested the claims, asserting that the injuries were not related to work and that the applicant's expert evidence was flawed.

The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's injuries were work-related and, if so, whether the respondent's expert opinion was reliable and whether the applicant's expert had properly followed the principles of expert evidence. The court considered whether the respondent's expert had overlooked the aggravation of underlying pathology in the knee, had not reviewed the most recent MRI of the shoulder, and had generally failed to sufficiently explain his opinions. The court also examined whether the respondent's expert had appropriately considered the consequential back injury and the relevance of the clinical notes.

After careful consideration, the court found that the respondent's expert opinion was deficient in several respects. The court rejected the respondent's expert opinion as he had not considered the aggravation of the underlying pathology in the knee and had not reviewed the recent MRI of the shoulder. The court noted that the respondent's expert had generally failed to adequately explain his opinions and had not appropriately considered the consequential back injury. The court found the applicant's expert evidence to be more reliable and preferred it over the respondent's expert opinion. The court applied the principles from Mason v Demasi and Qannadian v Bartter Enterprises Pty Limited to support its findings. The court also applied ACW v ACX to reinforce its decision.

As a result, the court awarded the applicant on all claims. The applicant was entitled to weekly benefits, surgery, and section 60 expenses under the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders