Yavuz v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited

DETERMINATION OF REVIEW PANEL
CITATION:	Yavuz v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2023] NSWPICMP 112
CLAIMANT:	Özlem Yavuz
INSURER:	QBE (Insurance) Australia Limited
REVIEW Panel
MEMBER:	Terence O’Riain
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Thomas Rosenthal
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Drew Dixon
DATE OF DECISION:	27 March 2023
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; section 1.6; minor injury and treatment; the claimant complained of cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine pain and right shoulder pain following the motor accident; contemporaneous complaint about right shoulder; scans showed large full thickness tear of supraspinatus tendon; shoulder injury was classified as non-minor injury; treatment was already provided; examining scans showed that shoulder injury was acute; Held – the Panel was satisfied that the accident caused full thickness tear of supraspinatus tendon; other injuries were soft tissue; the Panel were satisfied that the treatment was reasonable and necessary and improving her condition; minor injury certificate revoked; treatment certificate affirmed.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	Review Panel assessment of treatment and care - causation *Certificate issued under s 7.23(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017* (the MAI Act) The Review Panel confirms the certificate dated 16 December 2021 (reissued 4 April 2022). Review Panel assessment of treatment and care – reasonable and necessary Certificate issued under s 7.23(1) of the MAI Act The Review Panel confirms the certificate dated 16 December 2021 (reissued 4 April 2022). Review Panel assessment of treatment and care – improving recovery Certificate issued under s 7.23(1) of the MAI Act The Review Panel confirms the certificate dated 16 December 2021 (reissued 4 April 2022). Review Panel assessment of minor injury Certificate issued under s 7.23(1) the MAI Act The Review Panel revokes the certificate dated 16 December 2021 (reissued 4 April 2022) and issues a new certificate deciding the following: The motor accident caused the following injuries: · thoracic spine – soft tissue; · lumbar spine – soft tissue, and · cervical spine – soft tissue. These are MINOR INJURIES for the purposes of the MAI Act. The motor accident caused the following injury: · right shoulder. This is NOT a MINOR INJURY for the purposes of the MAI Act.**

REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 19 July 2020 Ms Özlem Yavuz was in a motor vehicle accident. She alleges she sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident.
The insurer insured the owner and/or driver of the motor vehicle for liability to pay to
Ms Yavuz any damages/statutory compensation under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act).
Ms Yavuz referred three separate medical disputes to the Dispute Resolution Services for the relevant Medical Assessors to decide, as follows:
(a)    minor injury dispute (physical): PIC APP – 10356894;
(b)    treatment dispute (physiotherapy): PIC APP – 10386635, and
(c)    minor injury (psychological): PIC APP – 10356864.
The treatment disputes arose in respect of the cervical and lumbar spine.
Medical Assessor David McGrath issued a Certificate (Minor Injury and Treatment – Physical) dated 16 December 2021 wherein he assessed that all the physical injuries referred to him were minor injuries for the purposes of the MAI Act, and that eight sessions of physiotherapy to the lumbar spine were related, reasonable and necessary, and will improve the recovery of the injured person.
On or around 12 January 2022, the claimant lodged a review application of Medical Assessor McGrath’s certificate, alleging that there was reasonable cause to suspect the minor injury assessment was incorrect in a material respect (APP – 10480588).
On or around 13 January 2022, the claimant lodged a further review application of Medical Assessor McGrath’s certificate, alleging that there was reasonable cause to suspect that the treatment assessment was incorrect in a material respect (APP – 10481233) because the Medical Assessor had not supplied certificates for the cervical spine treatment dispute.
These review applications were lodged within 28 days after the parties were issued with the original certificate for the medical assessment.[1]
[1] Section 7.26(10) of the MAI Act.
On 23 February 2022, the Presidential Delegate determined Medical Assessor McGrath’s certificate was incomplete, as he had failed to decide the issue of eight sessions of physiotherapy for the cervical spine. The Delegate dismissed the claimant’s review application for the treatment assessment and sent the certificate back to Medical Assessor McGrath to issue a complete certificate.
On or about 4 April 2022, Medical Assessor McGrath issued a complete certificate (still dated 16 December 2021), wherein he decided that eight sessions of cervical spine physiotherapy were related to the accident, reasonable and necessary, and will improve the recovery of the injured person.
It is understood the insurer approved that treatment. From the certificate it reads as if the treatment had already been paid for and the insurer was to reimburse the claimant.
On 29 April 2022, the Presidential Delegate accepted the claimant’s review application of Medical Assessor McGrath’s certificate in respect of the minor injury assessment and said that the matter would be referred to a Review Panel (the Panel).[2]
[2] Section 7.26(5) of the MAI Act.
The dispute referred to the Panel through the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) Portal mistakenly links the Treatment Dispute Application material only (PIC Portal Reference APP-10286635) which was resolved, instead of the Minor Injury (Physical Injury) dispute application material (PIC Portal Reference APP-10356894).

Review conduct

Part 5 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (the PIC Act) enables the Commission to make rules with respect to the practice and procedure before the Commission including proceedings before a panel reviewing a decision of a merit reviewer or a medical assessor.[3]
[3] Section 41(2) of the PIC Act.
Rules 127 to 130 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (the PIC Rules) are made following part 5 of the PIC Act. A Panel decides how it conducts and decides the proceedings and may determine the proceedings solely based on the written application.[4]
[4] Rule 128 of the PIC Rules.
A minor injury is defined in s 1.6 of the Act and includes a “soft tissue injury” or a “minor psychological or psychiatric injury”. Section 1.6(2) defines a soft tissue injury to mean:
“[A]n injury to tissue that connects, supports or surrounds other structures or organs of the body (such as muscles, tendons, ligaments, menisci, cartilage, fascia, fibrous tissues, fat, blood vessels and synovial membranes), but not an injury to nerves or a complete or partial rupture of tendons, ligaments, menisci or cartilage.”
Section 1.6 provides that regulations may be made to exclude or include a specified injury from being a soft tissue injury or a minor psychological or psychiatric injury. Clause 4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 (the Regulations) further defines the meaning of minor injury to include “an injury to the spinal nerve root that manifests in neurological signs (other than radiculopathy)” and an acute stress disorder and an adjustment disorder.

Assessment under review

Relevantly to the minor injury dispute Medical Assessor McGrath certified the following.

Summary of injuries

The motor accident caused the following injuries:
·        thoracic spine – soft tissue;
·        lumbar spine – soft tissue;
·        cervical spine – soft tissue, and
·        right shoulder –soft tissue.

Minor injury

The following injuries were minor injuries:
(a)   thoracic spine injury to the mid back foraminal stenosis with radicular symptoms;
(b)   lumbar spine L5/S1 injury, radicular symptoms extending to lower limbs, foraminal stenosis;
(c)   cervical spine neck injury, foraminal stenosis with radicular symptoms, and
(d)   right shoulder; right shoulder injury.
They were redefined respectively as:
(a)   thoracic spine – soft tissue;
(b)   lumbar spine – soft tissue;
(c)   cervical spine – soft tissue, and
(d)   right shoulder – soft tissue.

Treatment

The Medical Assessor assessed the dispute about the eight physiotherapy attendances for the cervical and lumbar spine. He assessed the following:
(a)   the motor accident caused both injuries requiring the proposed treatment;
(b)   the proposed treatment was reasonable and necessary, and
(c)   the proposed treatment will improve the claimant’s recovery.

DISPUTES AND ISSUES

The claimant submitted the Medical Assessor erred when he incorrectly summarised the radiological evidence relating to the claimant's shoulder. The claimant submits the Medical Assessor did not refer to the full thickness partial width tear of the sub scapularis and supraspinatus tendons, which were referred to in the radiological evidence.

Claimant’s submissions

The Medical Assessor concluded that the claimant sustained a soft tissue injury to her right shoulder. This findingis inconsistent with the medical evidence available.
Dr Brecher states there is evidence of full thickness partial tear of the subscapularis and supraspinatus tendons with mild to moderate tendinosis of the supraspinatus tendon and thickening of the subdeltoid bursa concerning the presence of bursitis and small to moderate collection of fluid within the sheath of the long head of the biceps tendon and in the coracoacromial ligament.
It was not open to Medical Assessor McGrath to conclude that the claimant sustained a minor injury when the available ultrasound investigation reports a full thickness partial tear of the right shoulder subscapularis and supraspinatus tendons.
Dr Brecher’s report dated 24 July 2020 unequivocally points to the subject accident causing a specific non-minor injury to the claimant’s right shoulder.
Medical Assessor McGrath found that “She has a dysfunctional right shoulder either from seatbelt injury or a muscular effect from the shoulder girdle which has developed over time”. The Medical Assessor’s clinical findings recorded the loss of motion of the right shoulder and noted that the “pain was reproduced with high flexion and abduction” and he recorded limitations in external rotation, but he did not adequately apply the clinical findings and the radiological investigations reports to the minor injury definition findings as set out in the Act.
Medical Assessor McGrath did not acknowledge that apart from medication and physiotherapy treatment, on or about 16 September 2020 the claimant underwent right shoulder subacromial/subdeltoid bursal injection by Dr Gomes in order to alleviate her right shoulder symptoms. Her general practitioner (GP) noted as of 7 October 2020 that the treatment helped slightly with the right shoulder pain, however the claimant continued to suffer with the symptoms of the neck, back and the right shoulder pain throughout September and October 2020, as well as depression and anxiety following the motor accident that occurred on 19 July 2020.
The Medical Assessor did not review all relevant records available at the assessment as required under cl 5.6 of the Guidelines.
In respect of the lumbar spine injury, the claimant submits that Medical Assessor McGrath did not undertake a straight leg test on either limb to see if he could elicit whether radiculopathy was present. The claimant submits that Medical Assessor McGrath failed to assess and correlate or exclude the clinical evidence of the partial L5 nerve root impingement, which was evident on the MRI lumbar spine investigations dated 25 August 2020, with the clinical findings of lower back radicular pain extending to the lower limb.

Insurer’s submissions

The respondent insurer opposed the claimant’s application.
The Panel is to assess the following injuries/issues via re-examination with respect to a minor injury and treatment dispute, being the disputes previously referred to Medical Assessor McGrath:
(a)   cervical spine – neck injury, foraminal stenosis with radicular symptoms;
(b)   thoracic spine – injury to the mid-back foraminal stenosis with radicular symptoms;
(c)   lumbar spine – L5/S1 injury, radicular symptoms extending to lower limbs, foraminal stenosis;
(d)   right shoulder – right shoulder injury;
(e)   whether the 8 sessions of physiotherapy of the cervical spine relates to the injury caused by the motor accident;
(f)    whether the 8 sessions of physiotherapy of the cervical spine is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances;
(g)   whether the 8 sessions of physiotherapy of the cervical spine will improve the recovery of the injured person;
(h)   whether the 8 sessions of physiotherapy of the lumbar spine relates to the injury caused by the motor accident;
(i)    whether the 8 sessions of physiotherapy of the lumbar spine is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances, and
(j)    whether the 8 sessions of physiotherapy of the lumbar spine will improve the recovery of the injured person.
The treatment dispute relates to 8 x 1 physiotherapy sessions for the cervical spine, and 8 x 1 physiotherapy sessions for the lumbar spine.
Direction 5 of the Panel’s Directions dated 1 June 2022 states that “the joint statement of agreed and disputed facts will assist the panel to discern what can be adopted and what the parties require the panel to assess”.
The insurer submits that the parties are unable to limit the matters of the original medical assessment which the Panel are to assess.
In particular, s 7.26 of the MAI Act is concerned with the referral of medical assessments, not medical disputes. Once a review application of a medical assessment is accepted, the Panel is to re-determine all the matters of the original medical assessment.[5]
[5] Section 7.26(6) ‘The review of a medical assessment is not limited to a review of only that aspect of the assessment that is alleged to be incorrect and is to be by way of a new assessment of all the matters with which the medical assessment is concerned’.
As such, the insurer submits that the panel is to re-decide both the minor injury and treatment disputes, in line with Medical Assessor McGrath’s medical assessment.
The insurer cited evidence that Ms Yavuz had degenerative conditions that led to her right shoulder condition and claimed she had not made a contemporaneous complaint to health care providers about this body part.
The Panel’s directions dated 2 June 2022 state a preliminary review of the medical dispute matter and a list of directions as to the future conduct of the proceedings.
The parties were requested to produce, by no later than 10 June 2022, the following:
(a) joint signed statement as to the facts and issues on which the parties agree, and the facts and issues that continue to be in dispute, and
(b) joint bundle of documents.
The parties were unable to reach consensus on the joint statement or joint bundle of documents.
The insurer submits that the present panel should consider the earlier applications and replies (including annexures) from both the minor injury physical dispute (APP-10356894) and the treatment (physiotherapy) dispute (APP-10386635).
The respondent supplied the following added submissions after the Panel issued its directions.
The insurer submits that the claimant has a long history of musculoskeletal complaints and various myalgias, including reference to “severe periscapular, shoulder and thoracic pains” dating back as early as November 2008 (R11). There was no mention of any shoulder complaints in the ambulance report, nor were any shoulder investigations performed by hospital staff.
The insurer submits that there is an absence of contemporaneous injury to the right shoulder following the subject accident and that the presence of a shoulder tear in a post-accident scan is not, alone, sufficient to diagnose that pathology as being related to the subject collision. The right shoulder pathology is, on balance, more likely to be longstanding and attributable to degenerative pathology in light of the claimant’s history of complaints.

Claimant’s additional submissions

The claimant responded to the further submissions that contemporaneous evidence was recorded in the Hospital Emergency Department Discharge letter dated
19 July 2020, stipulating the claimant was in a high speed motor vehicle accident, and that she was “complaining of neck, shoulder pain and left lower back pain on movement”. This showed that the hospital staff investigated the report of shoulder pain to be incorporated into the discharge letter.
The insurer’s allegations that there is an absence of contemporaneous injury to the right shoulder is without merit. The allegation does not acknowledge contemporaneous hospital, clinical and medical information recorded at the hospital, by her GP and specialist.
The issue of the claimant’s myalgia, and occasional muscular pains, or vitamin D deficiency was shown to the Panel. There is no evidence of pre-accident structural integrity injury to the right shoulder.
The claimant made submissions as to why the insurer’s added submissions should not be admitted to the Panel’s consideration.
The Panel decided only the submissions summarised above would be considered, as they address the minor injury issue, which is the only outstanding matter to be resolved.

Documentation

The Panel considered the following documentation:
(a)   Medical Assessor McGrath’s assessment dated 16 December 2021, ultimately issued on 4 April 2022;
(b)   Application for review and attached documents;
(c)   Reply and attached documents;
(d)   the Presidential delegate’s reasons dated 29 April 2022 for referring the physical minor injury assessment to a Review Panel;
(e)   all the submissions and documents which were provided to Medical Assessor McGrath before the assessment under review, and
(f)    other submissions provided after the Panel’s directions issued on
17 June 2022.

Panel matters considered and decided

The Review Panel met on 14 June 2022.
The Panel decided re-examining the claimant was necessary in order to reach a decision because a radiculopathy and dysmetria check requires an in person assessment. Further the insurer asked for an in person assessment.
So arrangements were made for Medical Assessor Thomas Rosenthal to examine Ms Yavuz on 27 July 2022. Due to Panel members being unavailable the Panel was only able to reconvene on 29 September 2022 to discuss the matter further.

REVIEW PANEL FINDINGS

Clinical Examination

Ms Yavuz attended the Commission rooms at 1 Oxford Street, Darlinghurst on
27 July 2022. A Turkish interpreter–Nermin Ozan–was arranged via telephone connection.
Medical Assessor Rosenthal examined Ms Yavuz on behalf of the Panel.
Ms Yavuz confirmed the history she provided to Medical Assessor McGrath about the circumstances of the accident. She was aged 44 at the date of examination. On
19 July 2020, the insured car collided with the rear of the car she was driving.
She reported no pre-existing conditions of relevance although she was attending
[6] AD4 p 83.
Dr Gotis-Graham, a rheumatologist, prior to the motor vehicle accident. She said this was for muscle pains in her arms and legs. The motor vehicle accident led to new symptoms in her neck, back and right shoulder. She has been treated for a vitamin D deficiency. The report dated 7 October 2020 confirms Ms Yavuz’s reasons for seeing the specialist.[6]
The motor vehicle accident occurring on 19 July 2020 occurred when she was driving a Toyota Camry sedan. She had her seatbelt on when her vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle. She did not hit a car in front. Police and ambulance attended, and her car was towed away. She was taken by ambulance to Bankstown Hospital.
She reported injuries to her neck, shoulders, particularly the right shoulder, and lower back. Initially, the ambulance paramedics gave her morphine which masked a lot of the pain. She was assessed with X-rays at Bankstown Hospital and then was sent home. Her GP treated her. She said that she could not move for about seven months after the accident.

She had physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment which helped slightly and cortisone injections to the right shoulder around October 2020 which gave her some improvement for a period of about 12 months. Since then, her right shoulder symptoms have deteriorated.
The insurance company declined funding further treatment, decided that her injuries were all minor injuries, and no further treatment occurred. However since the insurer’s decision, she had further physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment and is still getting some chiropractic treatment now which, she says is still helping.
She denies seeing any shoulder specialist. She recalls having scans done of her neck, mid back, and lower back. I noted that she saw Dr Gotis-Graham after the subject accident.

Current symptoms

Ms Yavuz still has neck, shoulder, and back pain. She gets right arm pain related to movement. She has trouble lifting, bringing her right arm up above chest height and lifting anything heavy. She denies any symptoms in her left shoulder. She denies hand symptoms.
She gets low back pain but minimal neck and mid back pain. She gets pain from her back going into both legs down to her knees which is severe. She said she has it 24 hours a day. Her whole leg is affected. She can only walk for up to 15 minutes because of back and leg pain. Sitting is restricted for 5 to 10 minutes.
She has restricted right shoulder movement and the right shoulder is still stiff.
She is taking Norflex on most days and Cymbalta every day. She sees a psychologist monthly.
She still works in a takeaway shop doing customer service for about 10 hours a week. She did not work for about nine months after the accident.
Ms Yavuz lives in Villawood and does minimal housework. She said she cannot change the quilt cover, cannot lift the washing, cannot empty the dishwasher, cannot reach any high cupboards, cannot do the vacuuming. She said the children help with the vacuuming. She also has a robot vacuum. She can only drive short distances. She occasionally goes for a walk. When she goes shopping, she needs someone to push the trolley and she tends to carry things only with the left hand.

Physical examination

Ms Yavuz weighed 66kg and is 160cm tall.
Her right shoulder was stiff with a positive impingement sign, but movements were variable on repeated testing and pain affected. Approximate movements were 80° of abduction, 70° of flexion, 30° of extension, 30° of adduction, 50° of internal rotation, 50° of external rotation.
Her left shoulder showed a full range of movement.
She had a full range of neck movement without tenderness, spasm or guarding. There was no upper trapezial tenderness.
Upper arm measurements were 29cm on the right and 27cm on the left, 10cm above the olecranon. Forearms were 28cm on the right and 26cm on the left, 10cm below the olecranon.
There was no evidence of any significant muscle wasting around the right shoulder girdle.
There were no neurological deficits in her upper limbs although there was some global weakness which was pain-affected impacted by right shoulder pain.
The thoracic spine showed a quarter reduction in all ranges of motion with no asymmetry, no spasm or guarding.
In the lumbar spine, she had reduced lumbar movements by one-quarter in all directions. There was tenderness in the lower lumbar region, more to the left side. She was able to get up on her heels and toes and squat.
Straight leg raise was 60° on the right and 50° on the left. Lasegue’s signs were negative. The left straight leg raises produced back pain.
There were no neurological deficits in the lower extremities.
Thigh measurements were 44cm on the right and 43.5cm on the left, 10cm above the superior patellar pole. Calf measurements were 35.5cm on the right and 35cm on the left, 10cm below the inferior patellar pole.

Investigations

An ultrasound dated 24 July 2020 of the right shoulder was presented reporting a large full thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon.

Summary

Right shoulder inconsistencies were brought to the claimant’s attention. She claims the movements were the same on earlier examinations but affected by pain.
There was a positive impingement at the right shoulder with inconsistent reduction in range of motion.
The claimant experienced right shoulder symptoms immediately after the subject accident.
There was no radiculopathy in relation to the cervical spine, thoracic spine, or lumbar spine.

PANEL DELIBERATION

The Panel adopted Medical Assessor Rosenthal's examination report as evidence in this review and incorporates it into these reasons.
The Panel viewed the same documents that Medical Assessor McGrath relied on to make his findings.
We also noted that since Medical Assessor McGrath supplied his certificate the insurer had already approved paying for the disputed treatments.

Causation

The Panel viewed photos of the motor vehicle's damage, which occurred in the motor accident. It is the Panel's finding that the mechanism of the accident as described, which the photographs support, could have caused the injuries to the cervical, lumbar and thoracic spine soft tissue injuries, and the right shoulder injury.
The application for personal injury benefits says the claimant was driving her vehicle when the accident happened.
The seatbelt is slung over the right shoulder in the driving position and the seatbelt locking mechanism would have forcibly restrained the claimant from going forward when the rear end collision occurred.
The obvious impact, which the photographs showed and how Ms Yavuz described the accident, and the evidence in the scans also leads the Panel to conclude that the motor vehicle accident caused the injury or contributed to worsening of any pre-existing right shoulder condition, as well as the spinal soft tissue injuries.

Treatment

The Panel noted the insurer’s submission that a review of the assessment should incorporate all matters referred to the Panel. The Panel decided the treatment issues could be addressed as follows.
Ms Yavuz had been paying for physiotherapy and was out of pocket for these treatments. As she already told Medical Assessor McGrath, Medical Assessor Rosenthal noted that she had been continuing the treatment, and it was helpful.
Each point of the medical disputes were already decided in Ms Yavuz's favour. The Panel noted the claimant continued to suffer pain, which made the treatment reasonable and necessary. The relief the treatment supplied showed it was improving her condition.
So we affirm each of the Medical Assessor's certificates in respect of her treatment.

Minor injury

In respect of the minor injury the Panel assessed the cervical, lumbar and thoracic spinal injuries as being soft tissue injuries. They are minor injuries for the purpose of the MAI Act.
The right shoulder scans showed a large full thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon. This signifies a non-minor injury for the purpose of the MAI Act.
Although the insurer says the claimant did not make a contemporaneous complaint about the right shoulder, the Bankstown – Lidcombe hospital discharge notice indicates Ms Yavuz complained about and sought treatment for her right shoulder straight after the accident.
Further, Medical Assessor Rosenthal had the opportunity to view the scans and assessed the rotator cuff changes as acute. They were not the result of a degenerative condition.

PANEL DECISION

The Panel found that the motor accident caused the following injuries:
·        cervical spine – soft tissue;
·        thoracic spine – soft tissue;
·        lumbar spine – soft tissue, and
·        right shoulder injury.

Treatment - causation

The Panel’s findings in relation to whether the treatment provided, or to be provided, is related to the injury caused by the motor accident are the same as Medical Assessor McGrath’s findings in his certificate dated 16 December 2021 (reissued 4 April 2022). The Panel confirms that certificate.

Treatment and care - reasonable and necessary

The Panel’s findings in relation to whether the treatment provided, or to be provided is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances are the same as Medical Assessor McGrath’s findings in his certificate dated 16 December 2021 (reissued 4 April 2022). The Panel confirms that certificate.

Treatment and care - improving recovery

The Panel’s findings in relation to whether the treatment will improve recovery are the same as Medical Assessor McGrath’s findings in his certificate dated
16 December 2021 (reissued 4 April 2022). The Panel confirms that certificate.

Minor injury

The Panel’s findings in relation to the minor injury are different to Medical Assessor McGrath’s findings in his certificate dated 16 December 2021 (reissued 4 April 2022). So, the Panel has decided that this certificate is to be revoked and will issue a new minor injury certificate.
Member O’Riain, Medical Assessor Rosenthal and Medical Assessor Dixon have viewed this certificate and the reasons. They agree with each of the findings.

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Yavuz v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2023] NSWPICMP 112

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0

[2023] NSWPICMP 112

27 March 2023