Wood v Workforce Recruitment and Labour Services - [2025] NSWPIC 269

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Wood v Workforce Recruitment and Labour Services [2025] NSWPIC 269
APPLICANT:	Wood
RESPONDENT:	Workforce Recruitment and Labour Services
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
DATE OF DECISION:	16 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; consequential condition; claim for lump sum compensation; applicant had accepted right shoulder injury and accepted left shoulder consequential condition; whether cervical spine was consequential; applicant need not show injury; Moon v Conmah Pty Limited applied; pathology identified for cervical spine condition; Grant v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd considered; Held – applicant suffered consequential condition in cervical spine; both shoulders and cervical spine referred for assessment before a Medical Assessor.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant suffered a consequential condition in his cervical spine. 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: Date of injury: 27 October 2016. Body systems/parts: right upper extremity (shoulder), left upper extremity (shoulder) – consequential condition, and cervical spine – consequential condition. 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, and (b) the Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 6 May 2025, attaching the Reply and attached documents.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Wood was employed by Workforce Recruitment and Labour Services (the respondent), who are a labour hire company. His duties were in fact at the behest of Roads Maritime Services, involved with road maintenance. He was required to operate heavy vehicles and complete labouring tasks associated with roadworks and maintenance in an area arising from the Broken Hill depot.
On 27 October 2016, Mr Wood, with a team, was required to attend to pothole patching. He had to lift bags of asphalt weighing approximately 20kg. At the job site, he was holding one of these bags, when he was accidentally struck by a colleague holding a rake, causing him to jerk his right arm backwards. This caused an injury to the right shoulder and liability for this injury has not been disputed.
Over a period of time, Mr Wood tried various medical treatments for his right shoulder, including physiotherapy and two bouts of surgery. He began to experience pain in his left shoulder as a result of overcompensation. He was diagnosed with left shoulder adhesive capsulitis and underwent surgery. Liability for this consequential condition is also accepted.
In April 2024 Mr Wood brought a claim for lump sum compensation for the right shoulder, left shoulder and cervical spine, for 29% whole person impairment. This claim went through the usual assessment and dispute process. The respondent disputed liability for the cervical spine, which was claimed as a consequential condition.
Mr Wood commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 3 April 2024, claiming lump sum compensation as a result of injury to the right shoulder, as well as consequential…

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 Wood v Workforce Recruitment and Labour Services 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 269
Decision Date: 16 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wood v Workforce Recruitment and Labour Services, the court was tasked with determining whether the applicant had suffered a consequential condition in the cervical spine, following a right shoulder injury that had been previously accepted. The applicant had also accepted that a left shoulder condition was a consequential injury. The case was heard in the relevant Australian tribunal or court, whose specific name is not mentioned in the summary.

The central legal issue was whether the cervical spine condition constituted a consequential injury to the right shoulder injury, for which compensation could be claimed. The court needed to establish if the applicant was required to demonstrate the cervical spine injury itself, or if the connection to the initial injury was sufficient. This was influenced by previous cases such as Moon v Conmah Pty Limited and Grant v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd, which provided precedents for assessing consequential conditions.

The court found that the applicant had indeed suffered a consequential condition in the cervical spine, following the accepted right shoulder injury. The pathology identified in the cervical spine condition supported this conclusion. The court applied the principles from Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, which stated that the applicant need not show the injury itself, but rather the consequential nature of the condition. Additionally, the court considered the case of Grant v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd, which provided guidance on the assessment of such claims. Consequently, the applicant's claim for the cervical spine condition was upheld, and all three body parts – both shoulders and the cervical spine – were to be referred for assessment by a Medical Assessor.

The final orders of the court mandated that the applicant's cervical spine condition be referred for assessment, alongside the previously accepted shoulder injuries. This ensures a comprehensive evaluation of the applicant's condition and the potential for further compensation.

Orders