Woods v Shirdi Sai Om Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 520

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Woods v Shirdi Sai Om Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 520
APPLICANT:	Wayne Woods
RESPONDENT:	Shirdi Sai Om Pty Ltd
SENIOR MEMBER:	Kerry Haddock
DATE OF DECISION:	30 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for permanent impairment compensation; accepted injury to right knee and consequential condition of digestive system; respondent disputed consequential conditions of right knee and lumbar spine; scant records of general practitioner; no report from general practitioner; Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Nominal Defendant v Clancy, Davis v Council of the City of Wagga Wagga, King v Collins, and Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes considered; Held – award for respondent for claim for consequential condition of lumbar spine; matter remitted to President for referral to Medical Assessor for assessment of permanent impairment as a result of injury to right knee, digestive system, and left knee.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. There is an award for the respondent for the claim for consequential condition of the lumbar 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: 29 October 2018. Body systems/parts: right lower extremity (right knee); left lower extremity (left knee), and digestive system. Method of assessment: whole person impairment. 3. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents; (b) Reply and attached documents; (c) Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 7 August 2025 and attached documents, and (d) Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 9 September 2025 and attached document. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Wayne Woods (Mr Woods), was employed by the respondent, Shirdi Sai Om Pty Ltd, as a pick and packer.
On 29 October 2018, Mr Woods was moving a mattress when he injured his right knee. He has suffered a consequential condition of his digestive system. He also claims to have suffered consequential conditions of his left knee and lumbar spine.
By letter dated 29 February 2024, the applicant’s solicitors made on his behalf a claim pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of 24% whole person impairment (WPI) as a result of injury to the right lower extremity (knee), lumbar spine, left lower extremity (knee), and digestive system.
On 14 August 2024, the respondent’s insurer, EML NSW Ltd (EML), issued the applicant with a notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.
EML advised the applicant that liability was accepted for injury to his right knee and upper digestive tract. Liability was disputed for consequential conditions of the applicant’s lumbar spine and left knee.
EML disputed that the applicant was entitled…

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 Woods v Shirdi Sai Om 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 520
Decision Date: 30 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woods, the appellant, lodged a claim for permanent impairment compensation against Shirdi Sai Om Pty Ltd, the respondent. The dispute arose under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and centred on an accepted injury to the appellant's right knee and a consequential condition of his digestive system. The respondent contested the consequential conditions affecting the appellant's right knee and lumbar spine, citing insufficient documentation from the appellant's general practitioner. The case was heard and determined by the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the validity of the consequential conditions claimed by the appellant, specifically regarding the right knee and lumbar spine, and the adequacy of the general practitioner's records to substantiate these claims. The court had to decide whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish these conditions and if the lack of a formal report from the general practitioner precluded the claims.

In rendering its decision, the court meticulously examined the statutory provisions and case law, including references to Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Nominal Defendant v Clancy, Davis v Council of the City of Wagga Wagga, King v Collins, and Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes. The court concluded that while the evidence supported a consequential condition of the lumbar spine, it was insufficient to establish the claimed condition of the right knee due to the absence of detailed records from the general practitioner. Consequently, the court awarded compensation for the lumbar spine condition but remitted the matter to the President for further assessment of the appellant's permanent impairment, including the injury to the right knee, the digestive system, and a left knee condition.

The final orders of the court were to award compensation for the lumbar spine condition and to refer the matter back to the President for a comprehensive assessment of the appellant's permanent impairment arising from the right knee injury, the digestive system, and the left knee condition.

Orders