Lord v Lincraft [2001] NSWCC 85

Lord v Lincraft [2001] NSWCC 85

The applicant's consistent symptoms, the temporal relationship with heavy repetitive work including stock-taking, her credibility, and the weight of the medical evidence supported a finding of chronic musculoligamentous strain caused by her employment, affecting the neck and upper right arm. The Court assessed 10 per cent permanent loss of the right arm at or above the elbow, 5 per cent permanent impairment of the cervical spine, and sufficient disability to support an award for pain and suffering under s 67. The back claim failed because the applicant's evidence was obscure and did not establish employment-related liability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Proceedings to Obtain Compensation; Claim for Lump Sum Entitlements as a Consequence of Work With the Respondent / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Applicant awarded compensation for employment injury to the neck and upper right arm, including pain and suffering; back claim rejected; respondent ordered to pay applicant's costs.
Legal Topics
['lump Sum Compensation' 'permanent Impairment' 'pain and Suffering' 'employment Injury' 'causation' 'assessment of Medical Evidence']
['workers Compensation'] ['lump Sum Compensation' 'permanent Impairment' 'pain and Suffering' 'employment Injury' 'causation' 'assessment of Medical Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Proceedings to Obtain Compensation; Claim for Lump Sum Entitlements as a Consequence of Work With the Respondent / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant suffered employment injury to her neck and upper right arm as a consequence of work performed for the respondent.' 'Whether the applicant had permanent impairment or permanent loss of use compensable under the Workers Compensation Act 1987.' 'Whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for pain and suffering pursuant to s 67.' "Whether the respondent was liable for the applicant's claimed back symptoms."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's consistent symptoms, the temporal relationship with heavy repetitive work including stock-taking, her credibility, and the weight of the medical evidence supported a finding of chronic musculoligamentous strain caused by her employment, affecting the neck and upper right arm. The Court assessed 10 per cent permanent loss of the right arm at or above the elbow, 5 per cent permanent impairment of the cervical spine, and sufficient disability to support an award for pain and suffering under s 67. The back claim failed because the applicant's evidence was obscure and did not establish employment-related liability.

Court Disposition

Applicant awarded compensation for employment injury to the neck and upper right arm, including pain and suffering; back claim rejected; respondent ordered to pay applicant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The respondent pay the applicant $2,000 in respect of 5 per cent permanent impairment of the cervical spine.' "The respondent pay the applicant $8,000 in respect of 10 per cent permanent loss of the applicant's right arm at or above the elbow." 'The respondent pay the applicant $10,000 pursuant to s 67 for pain...