Warwick-Smith v Sydney Trains - [2024] NSWPIC 529

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Warwick-Smith v Sydney Trains [2024] NSWPIC 529
APPLICANT:	Luke Warwick-Smith
RESPONDENT:	Sydney Trains
MEMBER:	Michael Wright
DATE OF DECISION:	23 September 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly compensation and proposed surgery; two injuries; background of prior injury; causation; Held – applicant sustained injuries in the course of employment; weekly compensation and medical expenses ordered.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffered injuries to his right shoulder in the course of his employment with the respondent on 14 July 2020 and 15 July 2023, pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). Employment was the main contributing factor to both injuries on 14 July 2020 and 15 July 2023. 2. The surgery recommended by Dr Kuo, right open laterjet procedure/stabilisation (the proposed right shoulder surgery), is reasonably necessary as a result of injury on 15 July 2023. 3. Respondent to pay pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act for the costs of, and related to, the proposed right shoulder surgery. 4. Respondent to pay the applicant weekly compensation pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act at the rate of (a) $682.06 per week from 2/3/24 to 16/3/24; (b) $895.96 per week from 17/3 /24 to 30/3/24; (c) $1,074.41 per week from 31/3/24 to 13/4/24; (d) $388.67 per week from 14/4/24 to 27/4/24; (e) $1,146.24 per week from 28/4/24 to 11/5/24, and (f) $695.89 per week from 12/5/24 to 8/6/24. 5. Liberty for the parties to apply in respect of indexation of pre-injury average weekly earnings and calculation of weekly compensation.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

In an Application to Resolve a Dispute, Luke Warwick-Smith (the applicant) claimed weekly compensation and medical expenses, being the cost of proposed right shoulder surgery, as a result of injuries said to have happened on 14 July 2020 and 15 July 2023 in the course of his employment with Sydney Trains (the respondent).

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
At the conciliation/arbitration hearing of this matter on 15 August 2024, the applicant was represented by Mr Hickey, of counsel, and the respondent by Mr Grimes, of counsel.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:
(a)    Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents;
(b)    Reply and attached documents, and
(c)    supplementary statement of the applicant dated 1 August 2024.

Oral evidence

There was no oral evidence.

Statements

The applicant provided statements dated 11 June…

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 Warwick-Smith v Sydney Trains

Details

AGLC: Warwick-Smith v Sydney Trains [2024] NSWPIC 529
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 529
Decision Date: 23 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application for workers' compensation by an individual against Sydney Trains. The applicant sought weekly compensation and reimbursement for proposed surgery, claiming that his entitlements arose from two separate injuries sustained in the course of his employment. The case came before the court for determination of the applicant’s eligibility for compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and for clarification on the causation of his injuries.

The legal issues the court needed to address were whether the applicant had sustained injuries that qualified for compensation under the Act, and if so, whether those injuries were caused by the employment or related to a pre-existing condition. The court was tasked with determining the extent to which the applicant’s prior injury influenced the current injuries and whether the applicant’s employment was a significant contributing factor. The applicant argued that his employment led to the exacerbation of his injuries, while the respondent contended that the injuries were unrelated to the employment or were an aggravation of a pre-existing condition.

The court concluded that the applicant had sustained injuries in the course of his employment, which qualified him for weekly compensation and reimbursement for the proposed surgery. The court found that the injuries were directly related to the employment and not merely an aggravation of a prior condition. In reaching this decision, the court considered the evidence provided by the applicant regarding the nature and cause of the injuries, as well as the medical reports that supported his claims. The court was satisfied that the applicant had met the burden of proof required under the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that the applicant be granted weekly compensation and that Sydney Trains be liable for the medical expenses associated with the proposed surgery. The decision underscores the importance of establishing a clear causal link between the injuries and the employment for workers' compensation claims.

Orders