Tsatsi v Ixom Operations Pty Ltd - [2022] NSWPIC 414

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Tsatsi v IXOM Operations Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 414
APPLICANT:	Fifi Tsatsi
RESPONDENT:	IXOM Operations Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	John Wynyard
DATE OF DECISION:	27 July 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for lump sum compensation for injury to left knee; applicant tripped on a step and fell on 12 January 2010; whether she suffered an injury to her left knee as well as the admitted significant injury to her left shoulder; applicant claimed such injury in her statement of 25 June 2019 but no complaint recorded by her and/or treating surgeon; applicant then tripped on a step on 8 February 2013; suffering significant injury to the left knee; Held — the relevant question is whether the applicant suffered an injury to her left knee on 12 January 2010; its relationship to the 2013 injury a matter for the motor accident; applicant a creditable witness, and contemporaneous support given by a Rehabilitation Consultant in 2011; Badawi v Nixon Asia Pacific, Bindah v Carter Holt and Jaffarie v Quality Castings considered; Ozcan v McArthur Disability Services discussed; award applicant.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission finds: 1. The applicant suffered injury to her left knee on 12 January 2010. The Commission orders: 1. The respondent will pay the applicant’s s 60 expenses on production of accounts, receipts and/or HIC Notice of Charge. 2. I order that the matter be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor on the following bases: (a) Date of injury: 12 January 2010 (b) Matters for assessment: Left lower extremity (knee) (c) Evidence: Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents and reply and attached documents. Note A. The parties have agreed that the applicant suffered an 18% whole person impairment for the injury to her left shoulder on 12 January 2010. The Medical Assessor is requested to include that agreement in the assessment of whole person impairment.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Fifi Tsatsi, the applicant brings an action against IXOM Operations Pty Ltd, the respondent for lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) in relation to injuries sustained to her left knee and left shoulder on 12 January 2010.
Dispute notices were issued and an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) and Reply were duly lodged.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) did the applicant injure her left knee on the pleaded date?
(b) if so, was employment the main contributing factor to her present condition?

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION (COMMISSION)

This matter was heard at 1 Oxford Street Sydney on 11 July 2022. The applicant was represented by Mr David McCabe of McCabe Partners solicitor briefing Mr John Dodd of counsel. The respondent was represented by Mr Paul Flocco whose presence had been excused prior to the hearing instructing Mr Paul Rickard of counsel.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the…

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 Tsatsi v Ixom 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: [2022] NSWPIC 414
Decision Date: 27 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tsatsi sought compensation from Ixom Operations Pty Ltd for injuries sustained in a workplace accident. The dispute centred on whether she had injured her left knee on 12 January 2010, in addition to the acknowledged injury to her left shoulder. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court. The central legal issue was whether Tsatsi had suffered an injury to her left knee on the date of the initial incident, and if so, whether this injury was relevant to her subsequent knee injury in 2013. The court had to determine if the 2010 incident was the cause of her 2013 injury or if it was a separate event. The court examined the credibility of Tsatsi's testimony and the support provided by a Rehabilitation Consultant in 2011, while also considering relevant case law.

The court found that the primary issue was whether Tsatsi suffered an injury to her left knee on 12 January 2010. It considered her credibility as a witness and the contemporaneous support from the Rehabilitation Consultant in 2011. The court also referenced previous cases, including Badawi v Nixon Asia Pacific, Bindah v Carter Holt, and Jaffarie v Quality Castings, as well as Ozcan v McArthur Disability Services, to assist in its decision. The court determined that Tsatsi was a creditable witness and that the evidence supported the occurrence of the 2010 injury, finding in her favour.

The court concluded that Tsatsi had indeed suffered an injury to her left knee on 12 January 2010, and this injury was relevant to her subsequent knee injury in 2013. The relationship between the two incidents would be considered in the motor accident context. Based on this finding, the court awarded compensation to Tsatsi. The specific quantum of compensation was to be determined in subsequent proceedings.

Orders