Wade v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) - [2024] NSWPIC 661

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Wade v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2024] NSWPIC 661
APPLICANT:	Carl Wade
RESPONDENT:	State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force)
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
DATE OF DECISION:	2 December 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for lump sum compensation; applicant alleged he suffered injury to back and hips due to nature and conditions of employment; worked as a general duties police officer and then in role as defensive tactics trainer; regularly thrown and subject to police handling techniques; lack of contemporaneous complaints to medical practitioners; competing medical opinions; Held – applicant suffered an injury to lower back and hips; matter referred for assessment of permanent impairment.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffered an injury to his lumbar spine and both hips arising out of or in the course of employment with the respondent, to which employment was a substantial contributing factor. 2. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for assessment as follows: a. Date of injury: 3 August 2023 (deemed) b. Body systems/parts: i. lumbar spine ii. left lower extremity (hip) iii. right lower extremity (hip) c. Method of assessment: whole person impairment. 3. The documents to be referred to the Medical Assessor are: a. the Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents; b. the Reply and attached documents; c. an Application to Admit Late Documents lodged by the respondent, attaching a supplementary report of Dr Bentivoglio, and d. an Application to Admit Late Documents lodged by the applicant, attaching a supplementary report of Dr Porteous and letter of instruction.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Wade (the applicant) worked for the NSW Police Force (the respondent) from the age of about 24. He began his career in an administrative civilian role, before attesting and joining as a general duties officer. As is commonly the case with police officers, this role often involved heavy and physical duties, including detaining offenders and foot pursuits. As is required, he wore a heavy belt contain various relevant items including a pistol. This was, after a period, transitioned to a load bearing vest.
After a period of working in general duties, Mr Wade transferred to a unit working as a full-time weapons and defensive tactics trainer. He worked for over 13 years in this unit, providing training for police officers and other participants in a variety of ways, including defensive tactics.
Mr Wade was eventually medically discharged from the NSW Police Force due to a psychological injury. That issue is not before me. The present dispute concerns an allegation of injury to the lumbar spine and hips, caused by the nature and conditions of his employment.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the applicant suffered an injury to his lumbar spine and hips within the meaning of s 4 of 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.

Continue reading Wade v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force)

Details

AGLC: Wade v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2024] NSWPIC 661
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 661
Decision Date: 2 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Wade, brought a claim against the State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) for a lump sum compensation, asserting that he suffered injuries to his back and hips as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment. Wade, who worked as a general duties police officer and later as a defensive tactics trainer, claimed that he regularly endured and was subjected to police handling techniques which contributed to his injuries. Despite the applicant's allegations, there were no contemporaneous complaints made to medical practitioners regarding his injuries. The medical evidence presented was conflicting, with various opinions on the extent and cause of his injuries.

The central legal issue before the court was to determine whether the applicant had indeed suffered an injury to his lower back and hips due to the nature of his employment and whether this injury warranted compensation. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the credibility of the conflicting medical evidence provided and its relevance to the applicant's claims.

In its reasoning, the court found that the applicant had suffered an injury to his lower back and hips. The court took into account the applicant's role and the inherent risks associated with his duties, as well as the competing medical opinions. The court emphasised the importance of contemporaneous complaints and medical evidence in substantiating claims of injury. Despite the lack of contemporaneous complaints, the court found the applicant's claims credible based on the totality of the evidence presented. Consequently, the matter was referred for an assessment of permanent impairment to determine the appropriate compensation.

The court's final order was to refer the matter back for assessment of permanent impairment to ascertain the extent of the applicant's injuries and the corresponding compensation.

Orders