White v Gilda Fabrics Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 192

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	White v Gilda Fabrics Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 192
APPLICANT:	Michael White
RESPONDENT:	Gilda Fabrics Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Kathryn Camp
DATE OF DECISION:	7 May 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for compensation pursuant to section 60 for past and future medicinal cannabis treatment; accepted injury resulting in further amputation of the right leg above the knee; historical cannabis use and high tolerance; actual and likely effectiveness of treatment; co-morbidities; dispute as to whether the proposed treatment is reasonably necessary as a result of accepted injury; principles in Diab v NRMA Limited, Rose v Health Commission (NSW), Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, and Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd considered and applied; Held – claim for past medical expenses discontinued; award in favour of the applicant for a trial of 6-months for medicinal cannabis pursuant to section 60.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. A six-month trial of medicinal cannabis is reasonably necessary treatment pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, as a result of the injury to the applicant’s right leg on 4 February 2002. The Commission orders: 1. The dispute in relation to past medical treatment is discontinued. 2. The respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary costs of a six-month trial of medicinal cannabis, in the form of CBD and THC cannabis oils and cannabis flower, to be managed and overseen by an appropriate medical practitioner, pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

This matter concerns whether a proposed trial of medicinal cannabis is reasonably necessary, pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), as a result of an accepted injury on 4 February 2002.
For the reasons discussed below, the worker’s claim for compensation is successful.

BACKGROUND

In 1985 Michael White, the applicant worker had a serious farming accident which resulted in his right leg being amputated. While working as a warehouse manager for the respondent, Gilda Fabrics Pty Ltd, the applicant sustained an injury to his right leg in 2002. This led to recurring infections on the stump of his right leg which resulted in further surgeries including a further amputation in 2021 of his right leg above the knee. As a consequence the applicant suffers chronic pain in his right leg, including phantom leg pain.
There is no dispute as to injury. However, the respondent disputes liability for the provision of medicinal cannabis. The respondent’s insurer issued a notice and two reviews pursuant to ss 78 and 287A of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, on
24 March 2022, 11 July 2024 and 29 October 2024.
On 2 December 2025, the applicant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute in respect of a claim for the costs of medicinal cannabis.
On 7 January 2025, 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 White v Gilda Fabrics 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: [2025] NSWPIC 192
Decision Date: 7 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

White brought a claim against Gilda Fabrics Pty Ltd under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 for compensation relating to past and future medicinal cannabis treatment. The claim arose from an accepted injury that resulted in the further amputation of White's right leg above the knee. The dispute centred on whether the proposed treatment was reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted injury. White had a history of cannabis use and a high tolerance, and the effectiveness of the treatment was in question given his co-morbidities. The case required the court to determine the legal issues surrounding the necessity and reasonableness of the proposed treatment.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing whether the proposed medicinal cannabis treatment was reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted injury. The court considered the principles established in Diab v NRMA Limited, Rose v Health Commission (NSW), Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, and Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd. These cases provided a framework for determining the necessity of treatment in workers' compensation claims. The court needed to weigh the actual and likely effectiveness of the treatment against the requirements set out in the relevant legislation and case law.

The court held that the claim for past medical expenses was discontinued, as there was insufficient evidence to support the claim. However, the court found in favour of White for a trial of six months of medicinal cannabis treatment. The court determined that the proposed treatment was reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted injury, considering the high tolerance and historical use of cannabis by White. The court's decision was based on the principles of necessity and reasonableness as established in the referenced cases. The court concluded that a trial of the treatment was warranted, given the specific circumstances of White's case.

The court ordered that the trial of six months of medicinal cannabis treatment be provided to White, as it was reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted injury. This decision recognised the specific needs of White and the potential benefits of the proposed treatment, balanced with the requirements of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court's ruling provided clarity on the application of relevant legal principles to the unique facts of this case, ensuring that the applicant received appropriate compensation for his accepted injury.

Orders