Find a decision

Claim for weekly benefits, medical and related treatment expenses; the respondent disputes alleged psychological injury with deemed date of injury of 8 February 2020; respondent raises defence under section 11A of the 1987 Act in the alternative;  Held – the applicant sustained psychological injury arising out of or during the course of his employment with the respondent;  the applicant’s employment with the respondent was a substantial contributing factor to injury;  the applicant’s psychological injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken by the respondent with respect to performance appraisal, discipline and/or demotion;  the applicant has no current capacity for work since 8 February 2020 and has entitlement to weekly benefits payable under sections 36, 37 and 40 of the 1987 Act; the applicant requires medical and related treatment as a consequence of the psychological injury he has sustained and the respondent is to pay the applicant’s medical and related treatment in accordance with section 60 of the 1987 Act; the applicant has an entitlement to costs and the respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed; the matter is certified as complex and a 20 percent uplift on costs for both parties is recommended. 

Psychological injury; section 11a issue only; performance appraisal and reasonable action; applicant raised handover concerns and was asked to attend meeting; not described as performance appraisal and occurring 16 days into employment; no agenda, no support person offered; uncertainty regarding purpose of the meeting; Held- respondent has not discharged the onus; meeting not a performance appraisal and on particular facts respondent’s action not reasonable; award in favour of the applicant. 

Appellant worker alleged injury to her right shoulder in workplace incident and, or alternatively, to have suffered consequential injury in right shoulder due to overcompensating for neck and left shoulder injuries suffered in same incident; AMS made 100% deduction under s323 on basis that right shoulder injury was due to a constitutional condition; whether AMS erred in doing so; Held- appellant recovered from soft tissue injury to right shoulder she suffered in workplace incident, but appellant thereafter used her right shoulder more to protect her neck and left shoulder that she injured in incident and this aggravated a pathology in right shoulder that had developed independently of workplace incident due to constitutional factors; that aggravation contributed to her impairment; AMS erred by applying s323; MAC revoked.  

Worker suffered a back injury and underwent surgery on two occasions; AMS identified signs which suggested the presence of radiculopathy but failed to assess it and held that scar was an uncomplicaed scar from a standard surgical procedure without describing it; Held - re-examination required which revealed that criteria for radiculopathy fulfilled and scar warranted assessment under TEMSKI; MAC revoked.  

DOC87 1 V3.0516. WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION. CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION. Issued in accordance with section 294 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Matter Number: 3995/20 Applicant: Ricardo Venero Respondent:

Worker claimed weekly benefits; dispute as to whether s44 D (2) of the 1987 Act applied to the worker in circumstances where there was no agreement as to her hours of work following a return from maternity leave. Respondent is refused leave to dispute the issue of current work capacity. 

Claim for medical and related treatment expenses, in particular the cost of surgical treatment in the nature of L3/4 interbody fusion; the respondent denied the applicant sustained injury to his low back arising out of or during the course of his employment with the respondent;  Held – the applicant sustained injury to his low back on 21 August 2015 and 2 August 2018 arising out of or during the course of his employment and the applicant’s employment with the respondent was the main contributing factor to injury; the applicant did not sustain injury to his low back on 13 February 2020 arising out of or during the course of his employment with the respondent; the applicant requires medical and related treatment as consequence of the injury he sustained to his low back on 21 August 2015 and 2 August 2018 and the proposed treatment in the nature of L3/4 interbody fusion is reasonably necessary treatment for injury sustained on 2 August 2018.  

Psychological Injury; appellant alleged the AMS did not have regard to the other evidence that was before him as to activities undertaken by the worker in relation to an Airbnb; AMS required to make independent assessment that has due regard to the other evidence before the AMS and is not to rely on self-report alone; Held - Panel satisfied as to error and required a re-examination; MAC revoked. 

Worker referred for assessment of WPI of the left lower extremity, scarring (TEMSKI)  and CPRS (left lower extremity) as a result of the injury on 26 July 2018; AMS assessed 10% WPI of the left lower extremity and 2% under TEMSKI resulting in a total assessment of 12% WPI; the Panel was satisfied that the AMS failed to consider the whole of the appellant’s nerve damage and this was a demonstrable error; matter re-assessed using methodology for assessment of CPRS 1 and not CPRS 2; Panel  assessed 24% WPI in respect of the left lower extremity and 2% under TEMSKI; Held - MAC revoked and worker assessed at total of 26% WPI.  

Appellant injured right shoulder in two separate incidents and suffered consequential conditions in left shoulder and cervical spine;  appellant submitted that the AMS should have assessed the signs and symptoms of her cervical spine as falling within DRE II and that the AMS should have aggregated her impairment of her right shoulder from the two injurious incidents because the incidents resulted in one pathology; Held - Panel held that AMS’s examination was thorough and the AMS was entitled to rely on his findings from his examination and, based on those findings, the AMS correctly assessed the appellant’s impairment of her cervical spine as falling within DRE I which attracts a rating of 0%WPI; Panel held that in accordance with s322(2) of the 1998 Act, the AMS ought to have have assessed the appellant’s impairment relating to her right shoulder from the two injurious events together because there was a single pathology in the appellant’s shoulder from the two events; MAC revoked.