Ypermachou v PMK Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 450

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Ypermachou v PMK Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 450
APPLICANT:	Agamemnon Ypermachou
RESPONDENT:	PMK Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	19 August 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Permanent impairment claim and threshold dispute; applicant suffered accepted injury to back and left leg in the course of his employment with the respondent in 1995; applicant also claims injury to his neck in the same incident, which is disputed, as are alleged consequential conditions to his right ankle, left ankle and respiratory system (sleep apnoea); Held – the applicant suffered injury to his back, neck and left leg in 1995; the applicant suffered consequential conditions to his left arm, right leg and obstructive sleep apnoea as a result of his injury; matter remitted to the President for referral of both disputes.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffered injury to his back, neck and left leg at or above the knee in the course of his employment with the respondent on 8 August 1995. 2. As a result of the injury referred to [1], the applicant suffered consequential conditions to his left arm at or above the elbow and right leg at or below the knee and a consequential respiratory condition by way of obstructive sleep apnoea. 3. Both matters are remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor in relation to the following: Date of injury: 8 August 1995. Method of assessment: table of disabilities. Body systems referred: neck, back, left leg at or above the knee including below the knee, left arm at or above the elbow (consequential condition), and right leg at or below the knee (consequential condition). Date of injury: 8 August 1995. Method of assessment: whole person impairment (to determine threshold dispute). Body systems referred: cervical spine, lumbar spine, respiratory system (obstructive sleep apnoea) (consequential condition), left upper extremity (elbow) (consequential condition), and right lower extremity (ankle) (consequential condition). 4. The documents to be referred to the Medical Assessor to assist with their determination are to include the following: (a) this Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons; (b) Application to Resolve a Dispute in matter number W4472/24 and attachments; (c) Application for Assessment by a Medical Assessor in matter number W4473/24 (not including attachments which are identical to those attached to the Application in matter W4472/24); (d) Reply and attachments in matter number W4472/24; (e) Response to Application for Medical Assessment in matter number W4473/24 (not including the attachments which are identical to those attached to the Reply in matter number W4472/24), and (f) applicant’s Application to Admit Late Documents in matter number W4472/24 dated 6 August 2024 and attachments. 5. The parties have liberty to apply in relation to the terms of the assessment within 14 days of the issuing of this Certificate of Determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Agamemnon Ypermachou brings two sets of proceedings against his former employer, PMK Pty Ltd (the respondent). The first proceedings seek payment of permanent…

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 Ypermachou v PMK Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ypermachou v PMK Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 450
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 450
Decision Date: 19 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ypermachou v PMK Pty Ltd involved a claim for permanent impairment by the applicant, who alleged he suffered injuries in the course of his employment with the respondent in 1995. The applicant sought compensation for injuries to his back, left leg, and neck, as well as for consequential conditions affecting his right ankle, left ankle, and respiratory system. The respondent disputed the applicant’s claims regarding the neck injury and the consequential conditions. The matter was brought before the court to resolve the disputes regarding the accepted injuries and the consequential conditions, and to determine the appropriate compensation.

The central legal issues for the court to decide were whether the applicant indeed suffered the injuries he claimed and if so, whether the consequential conditions were a direct result of those injuries. Additionally, the court had to ascertain the extent of the permanent impairment and the impact on the applicant's capacity for work. The court was tasked with examining the evidence and applying the relevant statutory framework to resolve these disputes.

The court found that the applicant had indeed suffered injuries to his back, neck, and left leg as a result of the 1995 incident. The court further determined that the applicant had sustained consequential conditions affecting his left arm, right leg, and obstructive sleep apnoea. However, the court did not accept the applicant’s claims regarding the injuries to his right and left ankles and the sleep apnoea as being directly related to the initial injury. The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented, which did not sufficiently establish the connection between the initial injury and the claimed consequential conditions. The court held that the matter should be remitted to the President for further assessment and resolution of the disputes regarding the consequential conditions.

In light of the findings, the court directed that the dispute over the consequential conditions be referred back to the President for further investigation and determination. This decision ensures that the applicant's claims are thoroughly examined and appropriately compensated for the injuries that are conclusively linked to the 1995 incident.

Orders