Wilson v Woolworths Limited - [2023] NSWPIC 189

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Wilson v Woolworths Limited [2023] NSWPIC 189
APPLICANT:	Courtney Marie Wilson
RESPONDENT:	Woolworths Ltd
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	28 April 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Weekly benefits; applicant suffered accepted injury to lumbar spine; respondent disputes liability; intervening act which broke the causal chain; question of acceptable evidence; a party which asserts an accepted injury has resolved or its effects passed carries the onus of proof on that question; Commonwealth v Muratore and University of New South Wales v Brooks applied; Held – intervening act did not break the causal chain; even if the alleged intervening act had occurred, the respondent offered no medical evidence that the effects of the alleged event broke the causal chain; the evidence establishes the applicant suffered a recurrence of her accepted lumbar spine injury, which has in turn caused her ongoing total incapacity for employment, which incapacity is not disputed; respondent ordered to pay the applicant weekly benefits from 10 July 2022 to date and continuing.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:

The Commission determines:

The applicant suffered an injury to her lumbar spine in the course of her employment with the respondent on 15 November 2021.
At the date of the injury in [1] above, the applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings were $766.75 per week.
As a result of the injury referred to in [1] above, the respondent has suffered total incapacity for employment from 10 July 2022 to date and continuing.
The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation as follows:
(a) pursuant to s 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 from 10 July 2022 to 24 July 2022 at the rate of $728.41 per week, and
(b) pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 from 25 July 2022 to date and continuing at the rate of $613.40 per week.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Courtney Marie Wilson (the applicant) was employed as a full-time “online” worker at the Woolworths Ltd (the respondent) Inverell store from 2017. Her duties involved putting together and preparing for collection by customers orders which had been placed online.
It is uncontroversial to say that on 15 November 2021, she suffered an injury in the course of her employment while lifting and lowering a large container called a tote, which contained 24 cans of soft drink and five one-litre bottles of water from a shelf above head height to the floor. As the applicant straightened after putting the bag on the ground, she felt a sudden, shooting pain in her lower back.
The applicant reported her injury, attended Inverell Hospital and was prescribed pain killing medication. She had time off work.
The applicant had a CT scan of her lower back and was prescribed 5mg of Endone, up to three times per day. On 23 November 2021, the applicant had an MRI which suggested an annular tear of her L5/S1 disc. On 15 December 2021, the applicant underwent an ultrasound-guided cortisone injection which she says improved her condition…

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 Wilson v Woolworths Limited

Details

AGLC: Wilson v Woolworths Limited [2023] NSWPIC 189
Case: [2023] NSWPIC 189
Decision Date: 28 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court involved Wilson, the applicant, and Woolworths Limited, the respondent, in a dispute regarding workers' compensation. Wilson claimed she suffered an accepted injury to her lumbar spine while working for Woolworths. Woolworths, on the other hand, contested liability, asserting that an intervening act had occurred which broke the causal chain between Wilson's injury and her current incapacity for employment. The legal issues the Court needed to resolve were whether the intervening act had indeed severed the causal chain and, if so, whether Woolworths had provided acceptable evidence to support this claim.

The Court considered the principles set out in Commonwealth v Muratore and University of New South Wales v Brooks, which established that when a party asserts an accepted injury has resolved or its effects have passed, that party bears the onus of proving their assertion. The Court examined the evidence provided by Woolworths and found it lacking in medical substantiation that the alleged intervening act had any effect on breaking the causal chain. The evidence presented by Wilson demonstrated that she had suffered a recurrence of her accepted lumbar spine injury, resulting in ongoing total incapacity for employment, which Woolworths did not dispute. Consequently, the Court found that the intervening act did not break the causal chain, and Woolworths was ordered to pay Wilson weekly benefits from 10 July 2022 to date and continuing.

This decision underscores the importance of providing acceptable evidence when contesting a workers' compensation claim, particularly when asserting that an intervening act has broken the causal chain between an injury and an ongoing incapacity for employment. The Court's findings in this case reaffirm the burden of proof that lies with the party asserting the resolution or passing of effects of an accepted injury.

Orders