Tika v Trucking Specialist Group Pty Ltd ATF - [2025] NSWPIC 552

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Tika v Trucking Specialist Group Pty Ltd ATF [2025] NSWPIC 552
APPLICANT:	Robert Tika
RESPONDENT:	Trucking Specialist Group Pty Ltd ATF
MEMBER:	Adam Halstead
DATE OF DECISION:	15 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; undisputed workplace injury; claim for lump sum compensation; section 66 of the Act; medication prescribed for conditions accepted as caused by workplace injury; gastrointestinal condition; whether consequential to workplace injury as a consequence of using prescribed medication; conflicting opinion from independent medical examiners; delayed onset of condition considered; cigarette smoking considered as other possible cause; Held – prescribed medication most likely cause of gastrointestinal condition; accepted as consequential to workplace injury due to prescribed medication; referral to medical assessor for assessment of whole person impairment.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) determines: 1. The applicant suffers a consequential gastrointestinal condition that arose from injury sustained on 5 November 2018. The Commission orders: 2. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor, to be selected by the President, for assessment of the following that arise from injury on 5 November 2018: · right upper extremity (right shoulder); · spine (cervical); · respiratory system; · visual system, and · digestive system (gastrointestinal). 3. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: (a) the Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents; (b) the respondent’s Reply and attached documents; (c) the applicant’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 8 August 2025 with attachment; (d) report of Dr Anthony Greenberg, dated 21 August 2025, and (e) this Certificate of Determination with reasons. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Mr Robert Tika, claims lump sum compensation based on permanent impairment from workplace injury on 5 November 2018. Various conditions are said to arise from that injury, most of which are uncontroversial. These proceedings are about whether the applicant suffered a consequential gastrointestinal condition. He claims medication prescribed to treat conditions arising from the injury has caused the gastrointestinal condition. The claim is disputed by the respondent, Trucking Specialist Group Pty Ltd.
An Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) was made to the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 23 June 2025 on whether the applicant’s gastrointestinal condition is consequential to injury accepted as work-related.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The matter was before the Commission for arbitration hearing on 22 August 2025. The applicant attended and was represented by Mr Tanner of counsel, instructed by Turner Freeman Lawyers. The respondent was represented by Ms Goodman of counsel, instructed by Bartier Perry Lawyers, and a delegate of its insurer was present.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have endeavoured to bring the parties to the dispute to an acceptable settlement and am satisfied that the parties have had…

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 Tika v Trucking Specialist Group Pty Ltd ATF

Details

AGLC: Tika v Trucking Specialist Group Pty Ltd ATF [2025] NSWPIC 552
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 552
Decision Date: 15 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tika v Trucking Specialist Group Pty Ltd ATF involved a claim for compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The claimant, Tika, alleged that an injury sustained in the workplace led to a gastrointestinal condition, which was a consequence of medication prescribed for conditions accepted as caused by the workplace injury. Trucking Specialist Group Pty Ltd ATF, the insurer, contested the claim, arguing that the gastrointestinal condition was not a consequence of the workplace injury or the prescribed medication.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the gastrointestinal condition, which was attributed to medication prescribed for the claimant’s workplace injuries, was a consequence of the workplace injury under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. This required the court to consider conflicting opinions from independent medical examiners, the delayed onset of the condition, and whether other factors such as cigarette smoking could have been a contributing cause.

The court found that the prescribed medication was the most likely cause of the gastrointestinal condition, and accepted that the condition was a consequence of the workplace injury due to the prescribed medication. The court acknowledged the delayed onset of the condition and the possibility of other contributing factors but determined that the prescribed medication was the predominant cause. Consequently, the court ordered a referral to a medical assessor to determine the whole person impairment attributable to the condition. This detailed assessment is necessary to quantify the compensation Tika is entitled to receive.

Orders