Masters v Baiada Farms Pty Limited [2001] NSWCC 14

Masters v Baiada Farms Pty Limited [2001] NSWCC 14

The Court found that the applicant more probably than not injured her left shoulder on 16 January 1996 and 16 March 1997, her right shoulder on 28 June 1996 and 16 March 1997, and her back through the nature of her work including falls, all arising out of and in the course of employment. The evidence established compensable permanent loss of efficient use of both arms and permanent impairment of the back, subject to deductible proportions, and supported an award under s67 and medical expenses under s60. The evidence did not establish compensable permanent impairment of the neck or legs, nor did it justify the declaration sought for a spa bath.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation Claim for Lump Sums, Medical Expenses and a Declaration as to Provision of a Spa / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Award for the applicant in part; spa declaration not made; liberty to apply granted on interest and any further contest about the spa issue; respondent ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics
['permanent Impairment' 'permanent Loss of Efficient Use' 'deductible Proportion' 'medical Expenses' 'reasonably Necessary Medical Treatment' 'workplace Injury Causation']
['workers Compensation'] ['permanent Impairment' 'permanent Loss of Efficient Use' 'deductible Proportion' 'medical Expenses' 'reasonably Necessary Medical Treatment' 'workplace Injury Causation']

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

Workers Compensation Claim for Lump Sums, Medical Expenses and a Declaration as to Provision of a Spa / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant suffered injuries arising out of and in the course of employment with the respondent.' 'Whether the applicant had compensable permanent loss of efficient use of the left arm, right arm, impairment of the back, neck, and legs.' 'Whether a deductible proportion should be applied for age-related or degenerative conditions.' 'Whether the applicant was entitled to an award under s67.' 'Whether the evidence justified a declaration that provision of a spa bath was necessary.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant more probably than not injured her left shoulder on 16 January 1996 and 16 March 1997, her right shoulder on 28 June 1996 and 16 March 1997, and her back through the nature of her work including falls, all arising out of and in the course of employment. The evidence established compensable permanent loss of efficient use of both arms and permanent impairment of the back, subject to deductible proportions, and supported an award under s67 and medical expenses under s60. The evidence did not establish compensable permanent impairment of the neck or legs, nor did it justify the declaration sought for a spa bath.

Court Disposition

Award for the applicant in part; spa declaration not made; liberty to apply granted on interest and any further contest about the spa issue; respondent ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • ['Award for the applicant under s66 in the sum of $10,125 in respect of 15 per cent permanent loss of efficient use of the left arm at or above the elbow after allowing for the deductible proportion.' 'Award for the applicant in the sum of $7,200 in respect of 10 per cent permanent loss of efficient use of the right...