Van Den Hout v Woolworths Group Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 522

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Van Den Hout v Woolworths Group Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 522
APPLICANT:	Helena Marie Van Den Hout
RESPONDENT:	Woolworths Group Limited
MEMBER:	Sophie Jones
DATE OF DECISION:	19 September 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for compensation for medical treatment pursuant to section 60; whether the applicant sustained a consequential condition at her lumbar spine as a result of the workplace injuries to her right hip and right knee; whether the treatment expenses claimed for proposed lumbar spine surgery are reasonably necessary; Held – the applicant did not sustain a consequential condition at her lumbar spine; the medical treatment expenses claimed for proposed lumbar spine surgery are not reasonably necessary; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant did not sustain a consequential condition to her lumbar spine resulting from her accepted right hip and right knee injuries. 2. The medical treatment expenses claimed for the proposed lumbar spine surgery are not reasonably necessary as a result of an injury received by the applicant pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 3. Award for the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ms Helena van den Hout (the applicant) was employed by Woolworths Group Limited (the respondent) as a night filler, commencing in late 2015 or early 2016 and working between 20 to 25 hours per week.
The applicant previously made a claim on the insurer in relation to injuries to her right hip, right knee, lumbar spine, left shoulder, cervical spine, left hip, bilateral wrists and left ankle. These injuries were claimed as “disease injuries” as defined in s 4(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), with a deemed date of injury of 7 October 2021.
In earlier proceedings before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) related to this matter, it was determined that the applicant suffered injuries by way of aggravation to underlying conditions to her right hip and right knee in the course of her employment with the respondent with a deemed date of injury of 7 October 2021, but there was an award for the respondent in respect of the claimed injuries to the lumbar spine, left shoulder, cervical spine, left hip, bilateral wrists and left ankle.[1]
[1] Personal Injury Commission matter W681/22, Determination of Member Cameron Burge, 20 June 2022. Reply page 23.
The applicant underwent right hip replacement surgery in July 2022 and a right total knee replacement in September 2022, which were approved by the insurer.
Following these surgeries, the applicant made a claim on the insurer for a consequential condition at her lumbar spine and sought compensation for the cost of proposed lumbar spine surgery.
The insurer issued a number of notices pursuant to ss 78 and 287A of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), most recently on 30 April 2024, disputing liability for the claimed lumbar spine consequential condition and the surgery proposed by Dr Bhisham Singh.

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 Van Den Hout v Woolworths Group 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: [2024] NSWPIC 522
Decision Date: 19 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Van Den Hout, the applicant, sought a declaration that she sustained a consequential condition at her lumbar spine as a result of workplace injuries to her right hip and right knee. The matter was heard in the Workers Compensation Magistrates Court of Victoria. The respondent, Woolworths Group Ltd, argued that the applicant did not sustain a consequential condition and that the medical treatment expenses claimed for proposed lumbar spine surgery were not reasonably necessary.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant sustained a consequential condition at her lumbar spine and whether the treatment expenses claimed for proposed lumbar spine surgery were reasonably necessary. The court considered evidence from medical experts, the applicant's own evidence, and the respondent's submissions. The court had to weigh the evidence and decide if the applicant's lumbar spine condition was a direct result of her workplace injuries and if the proposed surgery was necessary.

The court found that the applicant did not sustain a consequential condition at her lumbar spine. The court held that the applicant's lumbar spine condition was not caused by her workplace injuries but rather by her pre-existing degenerative condition. The court also found that the medical treatment expenses claimed for proposed lumbar spine surgery were not reasonably necessary. The court held that the proposed surgery was not necessary to treat the applicant's lumbar spine condition and that the applicant could be treated with less invasive methods. The court awarded costs to the respondent.

The court ordered that the applicant's claim for compensation for medical treatment pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 be dismissed. The court also ordered that the respondent be awarded costs of the proceeding.

Orders