Toufiq v Aldi Stores - [2021] NSWPIC 417

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Toufiq v Aldi Stores [2021] NSWPIC 417
APPLICANT:	Muhammad Toufiq
RESPONDENT:	Aldi Stores
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
DATE OF DECISION:	18 October 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for weekly benefits; determination of whether there was a workplace injury (section 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act)) and if so whether applicant’s employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury (section 9A of the 1987 Act); Held - worker was injured when he was bending and lifting a box during a ‘freezer run’ and that work was a substantial contributing factor to the injury.; order for weekly payments pursuant to section 36 and section 37 of the 1987 Act.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Amend Application to Resolve a Dispute to claim weekly benefits as follows: (a) From 16 November 2020 to 1 December 2020 at the rate of pursuant to s 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act); (b) From 2 December 2020 to 25 April 2021, and (c) From 26 April 2021 to date and continuing. 2. Respondent to pay the applicant weekly benefits as follows: (a) $688.51 per week from 16 November 2020 to 1 December 2020 pursuant to s 36(1) of the 1987 Act; (b) $579.80 per week from 2 December 2020 to 25 April 2021 pursuant to s 37(1) of the 1987Act, and (c) $51.55 per week from 26 April 2021 to date and continuing pursuant to s 37(3) of the 1987 Act.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Muhammad Toufiq (Mr Toufiq), was employed by the respondent, Aldi Stores (the respondent), as a store assistant. The respondent was self- insured at all relevant times.
Mr Toufiq alleged that he sustained injury to his lumbar spine in the course of employment on 31 August 2020 when he was working on the “freezer run” and bent down to lift a box on top of the chest freezer or fridge.
Mr Toufiq made a claim for weekly benefits and medical treatment.
On 11 September 2020 the respondent confirmed that the workers compensation claim by Mr Toufiq had been accepted.
On 28 September 2020 the respondent issued a work capacity decision.
On 13 November 2020 the respondent issued a s 78 Notice disputing liability for the back injury on 31 August 2020.
A review notice was issued by the respondent on 15 February 2020 maintaining the decision dated 13 November 2020.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remained in dispute:
(a)    Whether Mr Toufiq sustained an injury to his lumbar spine arising out of or in the course of employment with the respondent pursuant to s 4 of the 1987 Act.

(b)    Whether Mr Toufiq’s employment with the respondent was a substantial contributing factor to the injury to the lumbar spine pursuant to s 9A of the 1987 Act.

(c)    Whether Mr Toufiq had an entitlement to weekly compensation due to partial or total incapacity for work from 16 November 2020 to date and…

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 Toufiq v Aldi Stores

Details

AGLC: Toufiq v Aldi Stores [2021] NSWPIC 417
Case: [2021] NSWPIC 417
Decision Date: 18 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Toufiq v Aldi Stores was heard in the Workers Compensation Court where the claimant, Toufiq, sought compensation for an injury sustained during his employment. The dispute centred on whether Toufiq's injury occurred in the course of his employment and if his employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury, as required under sections 4 and 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Toufiq argued that he was injured while performing a task involving bending and lifting a box during a scheduled 'freezer run', an activity integral to his role at Aldi Stores. The primary legal issues before the court were the interpretation and application of these sections of the 1987 Act to determine if Toufiq was entitled to weekly compensation benefits.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the nature of Toufiq's duties and the incident in question. It assessed the credibility of Toufiq's account and the medical evidence supporting his claim. The court found that Toufiq's injury occurred while he was performing an activity that was part of his employment duties, thus satisfying the criteria for a workplace injury under section 4 of the 1987 Act. Furthermore, the court determined that Toufiq's employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury, aligning with the requirements of section 9A of the Act. This conclusion was based on the specific nature of the task he was performing and the direct link between his employment duties and the incident that caused the injury.

In light of these findings, the court ruled in favour of Toufiq and ordered that he be entitled to weekly payments pursuant to sections 36 and 37 of the 1987 Act. This decision recognised Toufiq's entitlement to compensation for the injury sustained during the course of his employment. The court's order ensured that Toufiq would receive the necessary financial support while he was unable to work due to the injury.

Orders