Warren v Workers' Compensation Regulator
[2025] QIRC 298
•3 November 2025
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Warren v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 298 |
PARTIES: | Samantha Warren v Workers' Compensation Regulator |
CASE NO: | WC/2024/22 |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator |
DELIVERED ON: | 3 November 2025 |
HEARING DATE: | 3–4 April 2025 |
DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: | Respondent's amended closing submissions (6 August 2025) Appellant's closing submissions (15 August 2025) Respondent's closing submissions in reply (27 August 2025) |
MEMBER: HEARD AT: | Pidgeon IC Brisbane |
ORDERS: | 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. Pursuant to s 558(1)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the Review Decision dated 29 June 2023 is set aside and another decision substituted, namely, that the Appellant's application for workers' compensation, the subject of this appeal, is one for acceptance. 3. Failing agreement between the parties, a decision on costs will be subject of a further application to the Commission. |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION – where the Appellant's neck injury was not accepted – where there are conflicting expert medical opinions – consideration of expert's credibility – where the Appellant's appeal is upheld |
| LEGISLATION: | Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 32(1), 558(1)(c) |
| CASES: | Austin v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 110 Taylor v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 6 |
| APPEARANCES: | Mr M O'Sullivan of Counsel, instructed by Shine Lawyers, for the Appellant. Mr S P Gray of Counsel, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator |
Reasons for Decision
Ms Warren ('the Appellant') worked as a Sandwich Artist at a Subway store in Hervey Bay.[1] On 4 January 2022, Ms Warren was working during a busy shift and noticed that there was no mozzarella in the display cabinet where the sandwiches were made. She went to get some mozzarella from the cool room at the back of the store.
[1] Ms Warren is employed by Parry Developments Pty Ltd trading as Subway Hervey Bay.
The cool room door opens by sliding it from left to right. Ms Warren went to slide the door open with her right hand. As she was pulling the door, both of her feet slipped out from underneath her and she fell backwards. Ms Warren's right hand remained on the door as she fell, and this caused a strong pulling sensation and pain in her right shoulder and the right side of her chest.
On 6 January 2022, Ms Warren lodged an application for compensation with WorkCover Queensland ('WorkCover') for an injury she described as being a 'right shoulder dislocation'. WorkCover accepted Ms Warren's claim and weekly benefits are/were paid to Ms Warren from 6 January 2022.
On 11 March 2023, Ms Warren says she woke with severe pain and stiffness in her neck. On 3 April 2023, Ms Warren advised WorkCover that she had sustained a neck injury.[2] WorkCover commenced investigations. WorkCover requested that two doctors undertake an independent medical examination of Ms Warren's neck. Ms Warren saw Dr Tamba-Lebbie on 4 May 2023 and Dr Coroneos on 15 May 2023.
[2] Described in the Appeal Notice as a 'cervical spine injury'.
On 29 June 2023, WorkCover Queensland determined to reject Ms Warren's claim for her neck injury.
On 6 September 2023, Ms Warren attended an independent medical examination with neurosurgeon, Dr Francis Tomlinson. Dr Tomlinson's opinion was that Ms Warren sustained both an injury to her right shoulder and a whiplash type injury to her neck in the incident on 4 January 2022.
On 26 September 2023, Ms Warren lodged an appeal of the decision of WorkCover with the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Respondent' or 'the Regulator'). The Regulator confirmed the decision of WorkCover to reject Ms Warren's claim on 19 December 2023.
In circumstances where there is no dispute that Ms Warren was a worker as required by the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ('WCRA'). The issue for my determination is whether Ms Warren's neck injury was sustained when her shoulder injury was sustained on 4 January 2022.
Ms Warren's appeal is determined as a hearing de novo. This means that the Commission hears the case as if it is being heard for the first time and decides whether Ms Warren has sustained an injury within the provisions of the WCRA.[3]
[3] s 32(1) of the WCRA.
The onus is on Ms Warren to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that:
a)she suffered the claimed neck injury on the same day as she suffered the accepted right shoulder injury;
b)her injury arose out of or in the course of employment at Subway; and
c)her employment was a significant contributor to the injury.
I have determined that on the balance of probabilities, Ms Warren's neck injury occurred during the incident where she fell at work on 4 January 2022 and that her employment was a significant contributor to the injury. On that basis, Ms Warren's appeal succeeds, and her claim is one for acceptance.
Did Ms Warren suffer a personal injury to her neck?
It is not in dispute that Ms Warren has suffered a personal injury to her neck.
Did Ms Warren's injury arise out of or in the course of her employment at Subway?
While the Commission is assisted by the evidence of expert medical witnesses, the Commission must weigh and determine the probabilities as to the cause of injury having regard to the totality of the evidence.[4]
[4] Appellant's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 15 August 2025 [3]; Taylor v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 6.
Evidence of Ms Warren and her partner, Mr Clarke
Ms Warren's discussions with Mr Clarke about her injury following the incident
Ms Warren says that she complained to her partner of pain in the 'shoulder to neck area' when she came home from the shift on the day of the incident.
Mr Clarke recalled that on the day of the workplace accident, Ms Warren appeared to be in pain on the right side of her body and that she had limited movement and could not stretch her right arm.[5]
[5] T1-26-7.
Mr Clarke said that Ms Warren's ability to use her right arm was extremely limited and that she was using a sling for a few weeks. Mr Clarke said that Ms Warren had said that the pain she was suffering was in the shoulder and the neck. Mr Clarke said that he tried to massage Ms Warren, but he could not touch the neck and shoulder as it was too sensitive. Mr Clarke said that Ms Warren continued to have problems in that same area.[6]
[6] T1-27.
Under cross-examination, Mr Clarke was asked whether the only area of the body Ms Warren said she was suffering from pain in after the incident at Subway on 6 January 2022 was her shoulder. He answered, 'Correct.'.[7]
[7] T1-28.
Physiotherapy treatment
Ms Warren says that when she went for physiotherapy treatment on 27 January 2022, she completed a 'new patient details form' and indicated that she was experiencing discomfort in her neck.[8]
[8] Exhibit 1, 60.
I have reviewed that 'New Patient Details' form for Physikal Physiotherapy and Massage. The form asks what areas Ms Warren would like to have treated, and she answers, 'shoulder'. Ms Warren rates her pain at 4/10 with a score of ten being 'worst imaginable pain'. In answer to the question, 'Are there any activities which are restricted, or you have to avoid due to your condition?', Ms Warren answers that she cannot lift her arm up 'too high'. The form then asks, 'Other than your main problem, do you have any other areas of discomfort?' and then offers a number of boxes listing different concerns. Ms Warren ticks 'Sore/Tired Shoulders' and 'Neck Pain'.
When Ms Warren was questioned about ticking 'Neck Pain', her evidence was that since she had injured her shoulder, she had been experiencing neck pain. She said that she mentioned this pain to her GP and that she ticked that box because it was there. She said that she did not know what was causing the neck pain.[9]
[9] T1-12 ll10-15.
The Respondent points out that while Ms Warren says the physiotherapy treatment was directed at both her shoulder and neck, the treatment plans and records all relate to her shoulder. The Respondent notes that the first time there is any reference to Ms Warren suffering neck pain is on 7 February 2023 where it is recorded that Ms Warren had '[s]ome neck pain today, slept poorly on it overnight'.[10] The physiotherapy notes describe neck pain and treatment for neck pain as occurring from 11 March 2023.[11]
[10] Exhibit 1, 41.
[11] Ibid, 40.
Ms Warren's attendance upon her GP, Dr Youssef
Ms Warren also says that she told her general practitioner, Dr Youssef at the Eli Waters Medical Centre that she had right shoulder and neck pain when she saw him on 6 January 2022.
The Respondent says that Ms Warren's evidence that she had reported the neck pain to her GP is 'directly contradicted' by the letter from her GP to Shine Lawyers dated 24 April 2024. In that letter, Dr Youssef says that the first time Ms Warren mentioned neck pain was on 3 April 2023 where she described having neck pain symptoms since 11 March 2023.[12]
[12] Exhibit 2.
Dr Youssef did not give evidence at the hearing.
Ms Warren's attendances upon Dr Tamba-Lebbie, Orthopaedic Surgeon
WorkCover referred Ms Warren to see Dr Tamba-Lebbie, and she saw him on 5 May 2022. Ms Warren recalls that she told Dr Tamba-Lebbie about the incident and said that her pain was in her neck and her shoulder. Ms Warren indicated to the Commission the area from below her ear down to the tip of her right shoulder.[13] Ms Warren also said that her front chest area was swollen.[14]
[13] T1-13.
[14] T1-13.
Ms Warren's evidence was that she had told Dr Tamba-Lebbie about her neck pain.[15] Ms Warren said that she showed him the area from her ear to her shoulder when she told him about the pain.[16]
[15] T1-18.
[16] T1-19-T1-20.
The Respondent says that Ms Warren's claim that she told Dr Tamba-Lebbie about having neck pain is refuted by his evidence and the letter he wrote to Ms Warren's lawyers on 22 August 2024.[17] I have looked at that letter and note that Dr Tamba-Lebbie says that on 5 May 2022, he asked Ms Warren about neck pain and she did not complain of neck pain or agree that she had any neck pain. Dr Tamba-Lebbie's evidence will be explored further below.
[17] Exhibit 1, 162.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie recommended Ms Warren undergo another MRI with dye as he thought her shoulder was still partially dislocated. Ms Warren said that at a follow-up appointment, Dr Tamba-Lebbie told her that there was a tear in her shoulder. Ms Warren says that she explained to Dr Tamba-Lebbie where her pain was and indicated the neck and shoulder area.[18]
[18] T1-14.
Ms Warren said that treatment on her right shoulder continued after that. On 9 February 2023, Ms Warren saw Dr Tamba-Lebbie for a further review. She recalled that she discussed her neck, telling him that when she washed her hair or moved in a certain way, a muscle somewhere in the junction area below her ear 'pops out'.[19] Dr Tamba-Lebbie ordered an MRI of Ms Warren's cervical spine.
[19] T1-15.
Ms Warren's evidence about the further MRI and treatment of her cervical spine
An MRI was ordered, however, the referral dated 15 February 2023 was made by Ms Warren's treating orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Palapitige.
Ms Warren said that she booked the MRI for 4 April 2023.
Prior to that MRI being undertaken, Ms Warren had a significant problem with her neck. As discussed above, Ms Warren woke on 11 March 2023 with a very sore stiff neck and could not move it. She said that on 12 March 2023, her left arm was numb without feeling, and that the right side of her neck was even more painful.[20] Ms Warren called an ambulance. Ms Warren said that the hospital undertook a CT scan which did not show anything, and she then had to wait as an outpatient for an MRI on her cervical spine as the Hervey Bay Hospital does not have an MRI machine.[21]
[20] T1-16.
[21] Ibid
Ms Warren said that she had the second MRI on 16 March 2023.[22] The MRI reported a 'large left paracentral disc protrusion'. Ms Warren agreed that since then, she had surgery to her neck on 5 March 2025 where 'they removed my C6 and partial of my C7, and they've put a plate between my C6 and C7. They fused it and I have a plate and four bolts'.[23]
[22] Exhibit 1, 178 (Report).
[23] T1-17.
Cross-examination of Ms Warren about her reporting of neck pain
It was put to Ms Warren that the first time she had ever described experiencing pain in her neck from the initial event at Subway on 4 January 2022 was in her evidence before the Commission. Ms Warren disagreed with this assertion.
Expert Evidence
Justin O'Sullivan – Physiotherapist and Ergonomist
Justin O'Sullilvan is a physiotherapist and is employed by Ergowork. He prepared a report at the request of Ms Warren's solicitors. Mr O'Sullivan agreed that Ms Warren's solicitors had provided him with some information and that he had undertaken a phone interview with Ms Warren. Mr O'Sullivan did not undertake a physical examination of Ms Warren.
Mr O'Sullivan recalled Ms Warren reporting to him that about four weeks after the injury of 4 January 2022, she was reaching up into a high cupboard, tilted her head a small degree and that as she did this, she felt the muscles behind her ear pop outwards.[24]
[24] T1-33.
Mr O'Sullivan's opinion is that it is more likely than not that Ms Warren could have injured her neck in the fall at Subway on 4 January 2022.[25]
[25] Exhibit 1, 195-197 (Report).
Dr Tomlinson - Neurosurgeon
Dr Tomlinson interviewed and examined Ms Warren for the purposes of providing a medico-legal report. He provided his first report on 9 November 2023.[26] Dr Tomlinson provided a further report on 16 November 2023 in which he says he has nothing to add to the first report.[27]
[26] Exhibit 1, 148
[27] Exhibit 1, 154.
There is a further report from Dr Tomlinson dated 31 May 2024.[28]Dr Tomlinson's opinion in that report was that the cervical spine condition was causally related to Ms Warren's January 2022 accident.
[28] Exhibit 1, 157.
In a further file note dated 2 April 2025, Dr Tomlinson confirms that opinion, confirms the surgery Ms Warren had recently undergone and says that in his opinion, 'the soft tissue injury to the cervical spine in the initial incident has likely weakened the neck structures to such an extent that it has resulted in disc protrusion and resultant surgery'.[29]
[29] Exhibit 5.
It was put to Dr Tomlinson that Ms Warren has a 'significant degenerative condition to her cervical spine'. Dr Tomlinson disagreed. On the basis of Ms Warren's history and the MRI, Dr Tomlinson said that there is a disc protrusion but no evidence of severe degeneration. Dr Tomlinson said, 'it was a traumatic injury to her cervical spine that caused the problems'.[30]
[30] T2-8.
It was put to Dr Tomlinson that he did not review the MRI images and that he had only read the notes of the report. Dr Tomlinson's evidence was to the effect that he had not looked at the MRI at the time of writing the report. It later transpired that Dr Tomlinson had looked at the MRI images in the morning prior to giving evidence at the hearing. He said that those images did not change the opinion given in his written report.[31]
[31] T2-23.
Dr Tomlinson agreed that in considering Ms Warren's history, he relied upon the Physikal intake form where Ms Warren ticked a box stating that she had neck pain. He also agreed that he had considered or relied upon Dr Tamba-Lebbie's handwritten notes where Dr Tomilinson understood it was recorded that Ms Warren had reported neck pain. Dr Tomlinson considered this to be a contemporaneous handwritten note.
It was put to Dr Tomlinson several times that it may change his opinion if it was the case that Dr Tamba-Lebbie's notes simply record that he asked about neck pain and his evidence before the Commission was that Ms Warren had not admitted to having neck pain or had not complained of neck pain. Dr Tomlinson's evidence was to the effect that Ms Warren had reported an injury, has had ongoing symptoms, and she has required surgery.[32] At the conclusion of his evidence, Dr Tomlinson was asked if Dr Tamba-Lebbie's notes did not contain a reference to neck pain, his opinion would change. Dr Tomlinson said no.[33]
[32] T2-14.
[33] T2-23.
It was put to Dr Tomlinson that disc bulges such as those experienced by Ms Warren can be caused by degeneration or cervical spondylosis. Dr Tomlinson agreed but said that 'they can also be caused by trauma…'.[34]
[34] T2-14.
In his evidence, Dr Tomlinson referred to the 'neck shoulder conundrum' which I take broadly to mean that it can sometimes be difficult to identify which of the neck or the shoulder might be injured and causing pain. I asked Dr Tomlinson if that might mean that when Ms Warren ticked the 'neck pain' box on the Physikal intake form it reflected the 'neck shoulder conundrum' and was referred pain from her shoulder rather than potentially being directly related to a neck injury.[35] Dr Tomlinson said that 'all those things are possible'.
[35] T2-15-16.
Dr Tomlinson's evidence was that it can be difficult to separate a neck injury from a shoulder injury, and that it is important to identify the main problem if someone is going to have surgery. Dr Tomlinson agreed that the treatment notes of the physiotherapist are important and said that 'you've got to look at everything'. He agreed that if someone is receiving treatment focused on the shoulder, that this might indicate the problem, however, as time goes on, one of the main problems may, in fact, be the neck.[36]
[36] T2-16.
Dr Coroneos - Neurosurgeon
Dr Coroneos received a referral from WorkCover[37] to examine and assess Ms Warren. Dr Coroneos had Ms Warren complete a questionnaire form[38] and then undertook an in-person consultation with her which included a history.[39] Dr Coroneos' report is dated 15 May 2023.
[37] Exhibit 1, 109.
[38] Exhibit 1, 34-39.
[39] T2-26.
Dr Coroneos said that when giving a history of the event which occurred on 4 January 2022, Ms Warren did not tell him that she suffered neck pain in that incident. Dr Coroneos said that Ms Warren verbally described the pain she experienced and pointed to the right shoulder, chest and mid-trapezius or scapula region.[40]
[40] T2-27.
Dr Coroneos said that he had regard to various reports, including Ms Warren's GP records and treating records from the physiotherapist.[41] Dr Coroneos said that those reports confirmed that there was no recording of any neck injury or cervical spine injury having occurred on the day of the incident.[42]
[41] T2-27
[42] T2-28.
Dr Coroneos confirmed that in undertaking his investigations he reviewed the MRI images, rather than only the reports. Dr Coroneos said that it is 'critical' to review the scans and to document what is on the imaging.[43]
[43] T2-28.
Dr Coroneos wrote in his report about cervical spondylosis. He said that this is a medical term which refers to cervical degeneration. Dr Coroneos said that it is a very common process which starts in many people at age 30 and is the most common cause for cervical or neck symptomology and said it is a degenerative process.[44]
[44] T2-28.
Dr Coroneos' report stated that he was unable to find any evidence of neurosurgical or spinal injury having occurred on 4 January 2022. Dr Coroneos noted the onset of neck symptoms in March 2023 and said that it is important to determine the precise onset of symptoms to analyse the causation link to the claimed date of injury.[45]
[45] T2-29.
Dr Coroneos noted that Ms Warren had written on the diagram he gave her about having neck pain from February 2022 but said that he had, predominantly, relied upon the history provided by Ms Warren. Dr Coroneos noted that on the first page of the registration forms, Ms Warren had written that she 'had 12 months of right shoulder on and off neck pain after the accident'.[46] Dr Coroneos confirmed that in answer to a question on the registration form asking if she had experienced previous neck pain, Ms Warren answered, 'No, not until I did my shoulder at work. My neck pops'. Dr Coroneos did not recall when Ms Warren said that her neck popped. Dr Coroneos said that on the symptom diagram, Ms Warren put down that the pain started in February 2022 but verbally told him that the cervical and upper limb symptoms commenced upon waking over a year later.[47] Dr Coroneos said that he relied on the verbal history Ms Warren gave that she woke up with the neck pain on 11 March 2023.[48]
[46] T2-30.
[47] T2-30.
[48] T2-31.
Dr Coroneos said that the fact Ms Warren had had cervical spine surgery made no impact on his causation analysis between the date of the injury on 4 January 2022 and the time of his assessment.[49]
[49] T2-32.
Dr Coroneos was asked whether the pain one may feel from the shoulder area can sometimes originate from the neck. He agreed and said that a good practitioner should be able to tell them apart through a thorough assessment.[50] Dr Coroneos said that a person would have to have significant neck symptoms to have shoulder symptoms.[51]
[50] T2-33.
[51] T2-33.
Dr Coroneos agreed that the neck and shoulder muscles share the same nerve pathways. He agreed with the general proposition that when an injury occurs, the nerves may not tell the brain the correct location of the problem. Dr Coroneos agreed that when you feel pain in one part of your body which may be caused by pain or injury in another part of the body, it is known as 'referred pain'. Dr Coroneos said that a good clinician would be aware of these radiation patterns.[52]
[52] T2-34.
Dr Coroneos said that there are some conditions in the cervical spine which will have location of symptoms over the shoulder. However, he said that the person would have neck symptoms as well. Dr Coroneos said it is a complicated issue, but that common causes of shoulder pain from the neck include from a herniated disc or ligament or muscle injuries.[53]
[53] T2-34.
Dr Coroneos agreed that there is no doubt on 4 January 2022 Ms Warren suffered an injury to her right shoulder. Dr Coroneos was unable to comment on whether Ms Warren suffered a significant jolt in that incident. The questioning moved on, and Dr Coroneos was asked about a description from Dr Tamba-Lebbie's report where he said '…Her shoulder went into forceful abduction and external rotation. And she believes she dislocated her shoulder'. Dr Coroneos agreed that those are twisting injuries to the shoulder. When asked whether that incident would be sufficient to cause damage to the cervical area, Dr Coroneos said that every case is different and that if there was 'a cervical spine injury, one would have expected severe symptoms and clinical signs in the cervical spine at the time'.[54]
[54] T2-36.
Dr Coroneos said that he didn't doubt that Ms Warren's shoulder and into the neck area was so painful that her partner was unable to touch the area soon after the incident.[55] Dr Coroneos said that a painful neck and shoulder area may demonstrate that Ms Warren's neck had received a severe jolt in the incident.[56]
[55] Ibid.
[56] T2-37.
Dr Coroneos said that the sling Ms Warren was using would have been used to treat her shoulder and not for the treatment of a cervical spine injury.
Dr Coroneos said that the fact Ms Warren ticked 'neck pain' on the Physikal intake form on 27 January could mean that she was complaining of neck pain. Dr Coroneos was asked if having problems with neck pain a couple of weeks after the event could indicate that the neck pain is a consequence of an injury caused in the severe jolting to the right shoulder area, he replied '…Well, she may have had a – if she had neck pain at the time – uh – she may well have had a cervical spine injury'.[57]
[57] T2-38.
Dr Coroneos said that he did not think that ticking the box regarding neck pain in the absence of GP records or physiotherapy records mentioning neck symptoms or examination findings of the cervical spine were consistent with a whiplash injury to the cervical spine.[58] Dr Coroneos agreed that in the type of accident Ms Warren had, involving the shoulder region, the structures of the cervical spine can be traumatised.[59]
[58] Ibid.
[59] T2-39.
It was put to Dr Coroneos that if he accepted that Ms Warren experienced both neck and shoulder pain following the injury on 4 January 2022, it would be an easy connection to draw that the incident was the cause of the neck pain. Dr Coroneos said, 'Yeah, that is correct, because there's a very close and strong temporal association. That's what I immediately thought to look at.'.[60]
[60] T2-40.
Dr Coroneos said that in circumstances where Ms Warren did not complain of any neck symptoms following the incident on 4 January 2022, there would not be a strong causal relationship between the cervical spine injury and the incident. He said that the delay in the reported onset of symptoms of 14-months after the incident is a long time and, in his view, significantly weakens the temporal causation.[61]
[61] Ibid.
Dr Coroneos was taken to the diagram in the registration form Ms Warren filled in. It was put to him that Ms Warren had clearly reported that she had pain in the neck from the time of the accident.[62] Dr Coroneos accepted that in the diagram, Ms Warren had indicated that she had been experiencing neck pain since February 2022. He also noted that when Ms Warren experienced the pain on 11 March 2023, it was not as the result of an accident or event on that day.[63]
[62] Ibid.
[63] T2-42.
Dr Coroneos was asked if, regardless of what he had recorded in his own written notes, Ms Warren was reporting to him that she had neck pain from the time of the accident on 4 January 2022. Dr Coroneos said that on the basis of the diagram Ms Warren had filled in, there were a number of conclusions one may reach. Dr Coroneos was asked if he had considered that the pain experienced on 11 March 2023 may have been a worsening of pain she was already experiencing. He said that Ms Warren had told him that the pain started on 11 March 2023.[64]
[64] Ibid.
It was put to Dr Coroneos that in forming his opinion about the causation of the cervical spine injury, he ignored what Ms Warren told him on the form or diagram about experiencing 12-months of neck pain. Dr Coroneos said that he relies on the verbal history Ms Warren provided during the consultation and that he looked at the GP records, the physiotherapy records, and the reports of the two orthopaedic surgeons who saw her. Dr Coroneos said that he did not take Ms Warren back to the diagram she filled in or the information in the registration form. He said, 'I rely on the history given – that's much more important than what she writes on the form'.[65]
[65] T2-43.
Dr Coroneos was taken to Dr Tamba-Lebbie's consultation with Ms Warren. On 9 February 2023, Dr Tamba-Lebbie had suggested an MRI of the cervical spine to help in delineating the cause of pain. Dr Coroneos agreed that Ms Warren had continued to experience pain from the date of the accident through until that consultation with Dr Tamba-Lebbie on 9 February 2023. Dr Coroneos agreed that where the right shoulder condition had not recovered over that period, a good practitioner would repeat the MRI and look at other causes for the symptoms.[66]
[66] T2-45.
Dr Coroneos agreed that Dr Tamba-Lebbie had recommended the MRI of the cervical spine prior to Ms Warren's presentation on 11 March 2023 with neck pain. It was noted that the referral for the MRI of Ms Warren's cervical spine was ordered by her treating doctor Dr Palapitige on 15 February 2023.
It was put to Dr Coroneos that when considering the history, the injuries which occurred on 4 January 2022 included not only the shoulder but the neck and that Ms Warren continued to experience pain in the right shoulder area and the neck and that when this did not resolve as expected, pointed to the cervical spine as being implicated. Dr Coroneos speculated that this was the rationale for requesting the MRI scans in circumstances where no neck symptoms were recorded. Dr Coroneos said that the medical history does not point to a cervical spine injury and that the MRI was normal in terms of an acute injury. Dr Coroneos maintained his view that that incident on 4 January 2022 did not cause the injury to the cervical spine.[67]
[67] T2-47.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie – Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Tamba-Lebbie assessed Ms Warren and provided a written report on 5 May 2022 following a referral from WorkCover.[68] Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that he asked Ms Warren if she was experiencing neck pain in addition to the shoulder pain she complained of and that she said there was no neck pain and so he did not explore that matter any further.[69]
[68] Exhibit 1, 76.
[69] T2-58.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie also saw Ms Warren to undertake a further assessment on 6 October 2022.[70] Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that Ms Warren did not report having symptoms of neck pain on that date.[71]
[70] Exhibit 1, 89.
[71] T2-59.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie saw Ms Warren again on 9 February 2023 and produced a further report.[72] Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that Ms Warren did not describe suffering from any neck symptoms at this attendance.[73]
[72] Exhibit 1, 98.
[73] T2-59.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that one of the reasons he recommended a repeat MRI arthrogram be undertaken was that the pain was persisting and he 'needed to rule out all differential diagnoses…so I cast the net wide and asked for an MRI of the C-spine'.[74] Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that he asked for the MRI of the cervical spine because sometimes shoulder pain can be referred from the cervical spine.[75]
[74] T2-59 ll45-47.
[75] T2-60.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that he then saw Ms Warren again on 4 May 2023 and he determined that the neck symptoms Ms Warren was experiencing had started in March 2023 and that the symptoms are consistent with the MRI findings of a disc protrusion on the left side.[76]
[76] T2-61.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie was taken to his file note which stated that there wasn't a connection between what was evident from the MRI and a neck injury being suffered in the event on 4 January 2022. Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that when he read the brief provided to him and looked at Ms Warren's presentation to himself and to Dr Palapitige, none of those mention any referred symptoms from the disc protrusion to neck pain. He said that he did not get a history of neck pain until Ms Warren's complaint in March 2023. Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that he can't tell if the disc protrusion which caused the pain in March 2023 is new or old, but he says that the symptoms which started in March 2023 were not part of the symptoms Ms Warren presented to him with or to Dr Palapitage.[77]
[77] T2-61.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that if the recent neck surgery had not improved the shoulder symptoms, it suggests that the right shoulder was the source of Ms Warren's pain when she saw him and confirms that the subsequent complaint about the neck was not on the side she initially complained about.[78] Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that Ms Warren's neck pain was obviously caused by the disc protrusion but said that he had not received a history consistent with any neck injury on the first two or three times he saw her.[79]
[78] T2-62.
[79] Ibid.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that he never explored whether Ms Warren's injury involved her neck because she denied having neck pain when he asked her. Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that when he later suggested Ms Warren undergo an MRI scan of the cervical spine, it was because he was looking for a differential diagnosis of shoulder pain referred from the cervical spine. Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that he didn't know what he was looking for, he was just looking for a differential diagnosis.[80]
[80] T2-63.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie agreed that possible common causes of neck-referred shoulder pain can involve a herniated disc.[81]
[81] Ibid.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie agreed that the incident which occurred on 4 January 2022 was a significant injury to the shoulder and was a quite a forceful abduction and external rotation.[82]
[82] T2-64.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie agreed that even though he was of the view that Ms Warren had not complained to him about neck pain, he thought it was wise to get an MRI of the cervical spine.[83]
[83] T2-65.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie was taken to a section of his written report of 4 May 2023.[84] That section of the report said the following:
[84] Exhibit 1, 119.
13. Is there any other issues contributing to her work related injury?
On my previous review I had suggested that an MRI cervical spine which for which (sic) she was referred. It is possible that the recalcitrant nature of her pain is as a result of referred pain from her C-spine and not as a result of a potential subluxation that she suffered. There was no described injury to the c-spine when she held the door, and the left hand was forcefully put in extension and external rotation. I do not know if there is a connection. I suggest that this question be put to the Neurosurgeon to see whether there is a connection between external rotation and abduction in the left hand producing a disc protrusion affecting only the contralateral upper limb. I would be inclined to feel that this is unlikely.
It was put to Dr Tamba-Lebbie that he cannot exclude that Ms Warren suffered an injury to the cervical spine and that's why she was suffering recalcitrant pain in her shoulder area. Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that he could exclude it. However, he agreed that he would defer to the opinion of a neurosurgeon. Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that he is not an occupational physician who can attribute causes to a particular thing.[85]
[85] T2-69-T2-70.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie was asked whether the accident Ms Warren experienced would have caused her to suffer not only an injury to the right shoulder but a whiplash injury to her cervical spine. Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that the evidence in front of him was that Ms Warren did not complain to health professionals about her neck and that would be 'a most unusual presentation of a whiplash injury that doesn't present for 10 months'.[86]
[86] T2-65.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie was asked whether he would see a connection between the complaint of symptomology in the neck and the accident if Ms Warren had complained of neck pain on 27 January 2022. Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that he would if there was a persistent complaint of neck pain.[87] Dr Tamba-Lebbie said it was obvious that Ms Warren had a significant injury to her shoulder and that she complained about it to every health professional she saw. Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that if she had a significant injury in her neck, he would not have expected Ms Warren to have no pain for a year.[88]
[87] Ibid.
[88] T2-66.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie was asked if it was possible that when you suffer the type of injury to the shoulder suffered by Ms Warren with the forces involved, she could also suffer soft tissue injury to the muscles, ligaments, discs and apophyseal joints of the cervical spine. Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that he did not have that evidence in front of him. He said that it is possible but not probable.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie's written notes of the 5 May 2022 consultation with Ms Warren included the words 'neck pain'. Dr Tamba-Lebbie was certain that this was a reference to the fact that he raised with Ms Warren whether she was experiencing neck pain. He was certain that Ms Warren told him she was not suffering from neck pain.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie said that the fact that the neck surgery has been done and the pain to the right shoulder has not gone away, means that the ongoing pain to the right shoulder never came from the neck.[89]
Consideration
[89] T2-61
Competing expert opinions
There is a contest on the medical evidence between Dr Tomlinson and that of Dr Coroneos (both neurosurgeons) and Dr Tamba-Lebbie, orthopaedic surgeon as to the cause of Ms Warren's neck injury.
The parties have referred me to cases which set out established principles for assessing competing expert evidence.[90]
[90] Ribiero v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 203; Austin v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 110 ('Austin').
Of particular assistance in this matter are the observations of his Honour O'Connor VP in Austin:[91]
[91] Austin.
[78] "Who shall decide," asked Alexander Pope, "when doctors disagree?" This is the question which faces the Commission. In McGrory v Median Property Services Pty Ltd the Court of Appeal had to deal with this very question of the competing evidence of two medical experts.
[79] In that case, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a room attendant. As part of her duties, she was required to lift an ice bucket. This activity caused her pain, and she eventually had to cease working in the position due to her ongoing pain and an inability to perform her duties. The plaintiff and two other witnesses gave evidence that supported a finding that she had suffered a significant disability. Medical evidence was given by Dr Allan Cook for the plaintiff and Dr John Walters for the defendant. Dr Walters gave evidence that was inconsistent with the three witnesses' testimony, while Dr Cook gave evidence which was consistent with that testimony. Although the trial judge accepted the credibility of the three witnesses, the Court preferred the evidence given by Dr Walters; on the basis that it was consistent with the other experts that had examined the plaintiff. Dr Walters noted, and the court accepted, that the plaintiff did not seek significant medical attention and did not report that any difficulties she had were "overly troubling". There was little evidence of any significant injury in the radiology.
[80] On appeal, it was held that the trial judge erred by preferring the testimony of Dr Walters whose version was inconsistent with the lay evidence. Sofronoff P and Fraser JA (Brown J agreeing) wrote:
[63]Conflicts in expert opinions can raise difficult problems for judges. Areas of specialised knowledge can raise issues about which it may be difficult to make judgments. Medical evidence given in personal injuries cases can sometimes be of this character. Particularly when two experts base their ultimate conflicting opinions upon exactly the same assumptions of fact, it may be a difficult task for a trial judge to determine which of the two conflicting views to accept.
…
[65]The respective medical practitioners were confronted, it seems, with differing presentations by the appellant upon examination. However, the problems presented to such experts had to be distinguished from the issues which the trial judge had to determine. The learned trial judge in this case was not limited by the same constraints as the medical experts. Unlike those experts, the trial judge had the benefit of comprehensive evidence of symptomology given by the appellant which had been supported in material respects by Ms Black and Ms Tucker. Having accepted that evidence the learned trial judge was obliged, as a matter of legal reasoning, to take those findings into account when assessing which of the experts' opinions he should accept.
[81]In McGory, the primary judge preferred the evidence of Dr Walters over that of Dr Cook because in three prior examinations, observations of the Appellant's range of movement in her shoulders was significantly greater than when examined by Dr Cook.
[82]However, Sofronoff P and Fraser JA found that this was an insufficient basis upon which to prefer the opinion of Dr Walters to that of Dr Cook:
[67]…It fails to take into account all the findings which his Honour made, and which his Honour had correctly made, about the appellant's evidence and that of Ms Black and Ms Tucker. Indeed, apart from being directly germane to the question of the symptoms caused immediately after the incident, that evidence was also relevant to the issue of "the plaintiff's failure to seek medical attention" and the reasons for that failure.
[83]Further, Sofronoff P and Fraser JA were critical of Dr Walter's comment regarding the appellant's failure to seek specialist medical advice:
[70]In a case such as the present, in which the evidence as a whole contains ample material upon which findings of fact can be made about the post-incident symptoms of a plaintiff and in which a submission is expressly made about the significance of that evidence to the ultimate issues of injury caused by negligence, a trial judge who is performing the function of finding facts is obliged to consider that evidence comprehensively. Evidence of the kind given in this case cannot be put to one side so that a conflict between the evidence of medical experts is decided upon a narrow, and possibly mistaken, ground limited to their respective observations.
[84]The medical evidence before the Commission dictates a choice between: (i) the medical opinion of Dr Trott which supported the conclusion of psychiatric injury; and (ii) the medical opinion of Dr Chalk that the Appellant did not have enough symptoms to constitute an Axis 1 diagnosis.
…
[86]In Taylor v Workers' Compensation Regulator, I observed the following:
[43]The Commission, as a tribunal of fact, can be assisted by expert medical opinion evidence, but must weigh and determine the probabilities as to the cause of an injury having regard to the totality of the evidence. The Commission's duty is to find ultimate facts and, so far as it is reasonably possible to do so, to look not merely at the expertise of the expert witness, but to examine the substance of the opinion expressed and (where experts differ) to apply logic and common sense to the best of its ability in deciding which view is to be preferred or which parts of the evidence are to be accepted.
[87]In Binns v Thomas Borthwick & Sons Mullins J (as her Honour then was) when presented with numerous medical experts and inconsistent diagnoses and opinions stated:
In considering the opinions expressed by Professors James and Whiteford and the written reports of the other psychiatrists and many psychologists who had examined or assessed the plaintiff, it was helpful to have had the opportunity of observing the plaintiff during the course of his giving evidence.
[88]The factors identified by the Appellant in her unchallenged evidence; the pain, the physical disability, the alterations to her family and domestic life, the absence of the opportunity to go back to work, to socialise, the feelings of frustration, failure, of accepted physical injury are all relevant to take into consideration in assessing which of the experts' opinions I should accept.
…
[91]Having had the benefit of the evidence of symptomology given by the Appellant; and having accepted that evidence and the evidence of Dr Trott, I am of the view that the Appellant has discharged the requisite onus and established that she has a compensable injury for the purposes of s 32 of the WCR Act.
(Emphasis added by Appellant)
The Respondent submits that Dr Tamba-Lebbie's evidence is consistent with Dr Coroneos' evidence and the documentary evidence before the Commission.[92] Both doctors have formed their opinion in reliance on Ms Warren having not reported or experienced neck pain or symptoms until March 2023. I do not accept that the first time Ms Warren complained of neck pain was over a year after the incident in which she hurt her shoulder.
[92] Respondent's amended submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 6 August 2025 [206].
Unlike Dr Tamba-Lebbie and Dr Coroneos, I have the benefit of the evidence of Ms Warren, which I accept, regarding her experience of neck pain from the time of the incident on 4 January 2022.[93]
[93] Austin v Workers' Compensation Regulator [80] citing McGrory [65].
Ms Warren was suffering neck pain before March 2023
I readily accept Ms Warren and her partner's evidence that she was complaining of pain in an area for her shoulder up to her ear. Ms Warren knew for certain that she had injured her shoulder on 4 January 2022 as this was where the bulk of her symptoms were being experienced and where the medical interventions and observations were directed. I do not think it is unusual or undermines Ms Warren's credibility or truthfulness that she did not self-diagnose a neck injury at that time.
I have no trouble at all in accepting that Ms Warren was experiencing neck pain when she first attended the physiotherapist a few weeks after the workplace incident on 4 January 2022. The intake form makes this clear. The form includes a space for Ms Warren to sign her name stating that the information she has provided is true and correct.
I accept that the physiotherapy treatment records and treatment plans refer to shoulder treatment. This is unsurprising when the acute injury and diagnosis Ms Warren presented with was to her shoulder. It seems to me that Ms Warren was receiving treatment on her shoulder but that given the area she says she was experiencing pain, the effect of the sessions was that she felt that the shoulder and the neck were being treated.[94]
[94] T1-12 ll15-20.
The Respondent has suggested that Mr Clarke's evidence that he could not touch Ms Warren to massage the area because she was in pain is contradicted by the fact that Ms Warren was able to be treated by a physiotherapist.[95] I do not accept this analysis of the evidence. I understood Mr Clarke's evidence to be referring to the immediate aftermath of Ms Warren's accident, whereas the physiotherapy treatment commenced some weeks later and continued for months.
[95] Respondent's amended submissions (n 92) [66].
I am unable to conclude on the available evidence that Ms Warren complained to her general practitioner that she was experiencing neck pain following the accident on 4 January 2022. Dr Youseff's letter is very clear that Ms Warren attended complaining of neck pain on 3 April 2023 and that she said she had the symptoms since 11 March 2023.
[100]Ms Warren says that she did tell Dr Tamba-Lebbie that she was experiencing pain in her neck. Dr Tamba-Lebbie is certain that she did not. However, Dr Tamba-Lebbie did consider that as the shoulder was not improving with treatment, Ms Warren should undergo an MRI of her cervical spine to explore a differential diagnosis.
Dr Tamba-Lebbie accepted that it was possible that Ms Warren suffered an injury to her neck in the incident on 4 January 2022. It appears that one of the compelling reasons Dr Tamba-Lebbie does not accept that the neck pain is caused by that fall is that Ms Warren did not complain of neck pain for a year following the fall. I have concluded on the evidence before me that Ms Warren did experience and complain of neck pain.
[102]In any case, Dr Tamba-Lebbie, while expressing a view that he did not think the neck injury was caused by the fall on 4 January 2022, did say that it is not an area of medicine he practises in and that a neurosurgeon would be better placed to give an opinion on causation.[96]
[96] T2-70.
[103]It is possible that Ms Warren did not verbally tell Dr Coroneos about her neck pain. It is unclear to me what questions Dr Coroneos asked Ms Warren about her experience of neck pain from the date of the incident. However, it is obvious that she complained of neck pain in the written registration form and diagram she completed when she consulted him. One wonders what the purpose of the registration form is if the doctor does not pay attention to its contents. In any case, the fact that Dr Coroneos relies on a verbal history when forming his opinion does not negate the fact that Ms Warren provided information to him which he did not consider.
[104]Dr Coroneos' opinion is undermined to the extent that he formed it based on Ms Warren having not complained of neck pain when in fact she reported this to him in written material he had asked her to fill in. Ms Warren was not to know that filling in that material was a futile exercise as no one would be paying attention to it and that Dr Coroneos relied on what was said verbally to him.
[105]Dr Coroneos believed there was no injury evident from the MRI of the cervical spine to explain the symptoms in the right shoulder. However, Dr Coroneos accepted the possibility that the cervical spine 'could' have been injured in the incident and accepted that in the absence of improvement over time, it is prudent to undertake an MRI. Dr Coroneos did maintain a view that there is no causal connection between the incident on 4 January 2022 and the cervical spine injury.
[106]I have considered submissions of the Appellant that there are historical matters canvassed at hearing which undermine Dr Coroneos' credibility.[97] I do not find that there is a need to make such findings. My conclusion is that Dr Coroneos opinion is undermined by his determination that Ms Warren did not complain of neck pain until March 2023. Dr Coroneos accepted the possibility that the cervical spine injury occurred in the incident, albeit that he believed it was unlikely. This evidence is set out above from [62]–[67]. I have considered this alongside the other available evidence.
[97] T2-47-51.
[107]Mr O'Sullivan is an ergonomist, holds a Master of Occupational Health and Safety and a Bachelor of Physiotherapy. He had the incident of 4 January 2022 explained to him, conducted an interview with Ms Warren, and was provided with some documents from Dr Tamba-Lebbie, Dr Coroneos and Dr Tomlinson. I have no reason to doubt his conclusion that it is more likely than not that Ms Warren could have injured her neck in the fall or that initial event appears to have resulted in 'cervical symptoms which have carried through'.[98]
[98] Exhibit 1, 201.
[108]While I accept that the history Ms Warren gave Mr O'Sullivan did not include her suffering neck pain in the event of 4 January 2022, Mr O'Sullivan was aware of Ms Warren experiencing neck pain and an event about four weeks after the fall in which she was reaching up into a cupboard and felt the popping of a muscle behind her ear.[99]
[99] T1-33.
It seems to me that Ms Warren had been suffering neck pain following the fall on 4 January 2022 and certainly before 11 March 2023. I readily accept that what she experienced on 11 March 2023 was neck pain of a nature that caused her to seek urgent medical treatment. However, on the balance of probabilities, I simply do not accept that the first time since her accident on 4 January 2022 that Ms Warren complained of neck pain was 11 March 2023. An example of this is that she had complained to Dr Tamba-Lebbie that when she washes her hair or moves a certain way, a muscle pops out.[100] That report was made in February 2023, prior to the 11 March 2023 event where she woke up in a great deal of pain. Additionally, in his referral for the MRI dated 15 February 2023, Dr Palapitige notes that Ms Warren was complaining of neck pain and radiating pain to the right shoulder.
[100] T1-14-T1-15.
[110]I accept that Dr Tomlinson did not review the MRI images before writing his report which was before the Commission. However, Dr Tomlinson had viewed the images on the morning of the hearing and confirmed that those images did not change his opinion.
Dr Tomlinson formed his opinion that Ms Warren's cervical spine was injured in the initial incident partially in reliance on Ms Warren writing on the physiotherapy intake forms that she was experiencing neck pain and that this was 'pretty close' in proximity to the injury. While Dr Tomlinson said his diagnosis on causation may be impacted if a different history was found by the Commission, I am of the view that on the balance of probabilities the history Dr Tomlinson relied upon can be accepted. While Dr Tamba-Lebbie and Dr Youssef say Ms Warren never complained to them of neck pain, Ms Warren disputes this. The physiotherapy form is documentary, contemporaneous evidence that Ms Warren was suffering neck pain in the weeks following the fall where she injured her shoulder.
[112]The Respondent has suggested that Dr Tomlinson's approach was 'dogmatic', [101]pointing to him stating in answer to a question about whether disc bulges can be caused by degeneration, that they can also be caused by trauma and that this is what Ms Warren experienced on the day of the incident. Dr Tomlinson stated that he had seen nothing up until that point of the cross-examination to make him change his mind. While I note that Dr Tomlinson was frustrated regarding a line of questioning arising from whether he had misinterpreted something in another doctor's notes, I do not find he was being 'dogmatic' and unwilling to shift his responses in the face of questioning. Instead, he rightly pointed out that some of these matters were matters for the Commission to determine.
[101] Respondent's amended submissions (n 92) [98].
[113]I decline to discount Dr Tomlinson's evidence on the basis that his opinions are based on a set of facts contradicted by the other available expert evidence. I accept that Ms Warren was suffering neck pain during this period. Not only because of the physiotherapy intake form but because of the evidence of doctors about the 'neck-shoulder conundrum' and connectedness of the areas which establishes that pain can be experienced across the whole neck and shoulder area.
Conclusion
[114]I have accepted Ms Warren's evidence that she was experiencing neck pain following the incident; Mr Clarke's evidence that Ms Warren was experiencing pain from her shoulder up to her ear such that he could not touch it; that Ms Warren reported neck pain when attending the physiotherapist three weeks after the incident; that she experienced neck pain and symptoms such as a 'popping' behind her ear; that her neck symptoms were such that Dr Palapitige referred her for an MRI stating that she was experiencing neck pain prior to 11 March 2023 amongst other evidence.
Having accepted this, and for the reasons above, I place limited weight on the opinions of Dr Coroneos and Dr Tamba-Lebbie insofar as they were reliant on Ms Warren having not complained of neck pain following the incident on 4 January 2022 until 11 March 2023.
On that basis, I prefer the opinions of Mr O'Sullivan and Dr Tomlinson to those of Dr Coroneos and Dr Tamba-Lebbie. Mr O'Sullivan was of the view that it is more likely than not that Ms Warren could have injured her neck in the fall at Subway on 4 January 2022. Dr Tomlinson's opinion is that Ms Warren suffered an injury to her neck in the incident on 4 January 2022. Those opinions were formed in reliance on and acceptance of what I have found to be the case, which is that Ms Warren complained of neck pain following the incident on 4 January 2022 and over a period of time prior to 11 March 2023. I also note, that while Dr Coroneos was of the opinion that the neck injury was not caused by the incident on 4 January 2022, he accepted that if Ms Warren had neck pain at the time, she may well have had a cervical spine injury.[102] Dr Tamba-Lebbie said it was possible but not probable for Ms Warren to have suffered soft tissue injury to the cervical spine, however, his opinion was based on the evidence available to him and he said he would defer to a neurologist or an occupational physician.
[102] T2-38.
[117]I am unable to identify any other contributing factors which would displace the incident on 4 January 2022 as a significant contributor to the injury.
[118]Ms Warren has discharged the onus of demonstrating that she suffered the neck injury and that the injury arose out of or in the course of employment at Subway. I accept that Ms Warren's employment was a significant contributor to the injury.
[119]Ms Warren's claim is one for acceptance.
Orders
[120]I make the following orders:
1.The appeal is allowed.
2.Pursuant to s 558(1)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the Review Decision dated 29 June 2023 is set aside and another decision substituted, namely, that the Appellant's application for workers' compensation, the subject of this appeal, is one for acceptance.
3.Failing agreement between the parties, a decision on costs will be subject of a further application to the Commission.
0
3
0