1. The respondent is to pay the applicant's reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses with respect to his lumbar spine, psychological injury and hernia.

A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission's reasons for the determination.

1. For nearly two decades, Glen Bradwell (the applicant) worked for the respondent, Canley Heights RSL and Sporting Club Ltd. He commenced employment as a part time bar person, before moving into a supervisory role within six months of commencement and eventually being offered the position of chief cellarman, which he performed for several years until his last date of work with the respondent in November 2023.
2. It is uncontroversial that on 11 June 2022, the applicant was attempting to move a collapsed patron from the restrooms at the respondent's premises. In order to assist the patron, the applicant climbed over the cubicle wall/door and then lifted and carried the patron firstly to a seated position on the toilet, then once the door of the cubicle was opened he placed the patron into the recovery position on the floor. While carrying out this task, the applicant felt a sharp pain in his back, lower stomach and left leg.
3. The applicant had some time away from work, before returning to his employment and normal duties, where he remained until 27 September 2023, when he suffered fractured ribs in an incident while repairing a swimming pool at his home and required six weeks away from work.
4. The applicant sought some treatment after his initial injury in 2022. However, between approximately June 2022 and September 2023, he did not seek any further treatment. When consulting his general practitioner (GP) in relation to his rib fractures, he also mentioned his prior back injury and was referred for a cortisone injection to his back which provided temporary relief. During the same period, the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from a hernia.
5. Additionally, the applicant claims that he has suffered a secondary psychological injury as a result of his physical injuries.
6. There is no issue the applicant did not lodge a claim in relation to his back injury until approximately October or November of 2023. The respondent denies liability in relation to each of the claimed injuries, asserting firstly the applicant is out of time to make his claim in relation to the lumbar spine injury pursuant to s 261 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act).
7. Additionally, the respondent alleges the applicant's lumbar spine injury had resolved shortly after June 2022, and that any incapacity during the period claimed in these proceedings results from the September 2023 incident at home and is not caused by any work injury. Likewise, the respondent denies liability for the applicant's hernia injury and following on from the denial of these physical injuries, for the secondary psychological injury claimed.

1. The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:

(a) whether the applicant's claim in relation to the injury to the lumbar spine is barred by the operation of s 261 of the 1998 Act;

(b) whether the effects applicant's lumbar injury suffered in June 2022 have passed and are causative of any of his ongoing incapacity;

(c) whether the applicant has or continues to suffer any incapacity for employment as a result of his work injuries, and

(d) amount of any such incapacity.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

1. I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
2. The parties attended a hearing before me on 14 October 2025. The applicant was represented by Mr Young of counsel instructed by Ms Shabana. The respondent was represented by Mr Coombes of counsel instructed by Mr Van Der Hout.
3. At the hearing, the applicant was subject to cross examination, as set out later in these reasons. That cross examination took place without objection.

1. The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:

(a) Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) and attached;

(b) Reply and attachments;

(c) applicant's Application to Lodge Additional Documents (ALAD) dated

28 July 2025 and attachments, and

(d) respondent's ALAD dated 9 October 2025 and attachments.

1. The applicant was cross examined by Mr Coombes at the hearing. The cross examination went to primarily issues of the delay in bringing the claim in relation to his lumbar spine, together with the absence of any complaint to his treating practitioners between approximately June 2022 and September 2023, being the time the applicant suffered a fall in a pool at his home in which he injured his ribs.
2. The applicant was questioned in relation to his failure to lodge a workers compensation claim after his injury in June 2022. His evidence was he did not want problems at work, and that he had seen people come and go who had made frivolous claims. He stated he was a work friend of his employer and did not want to jeopardise his position with the company.
3. The applicant conceded a supervisor at work, Mr Millard had made a claim in relation to a back injury suffered in the course of his employment and was provided with alternative duties. The applicant conceded Mr Millard was still employed by the respondent when the applicant left their employ.
4. The applicant recalled a conversation with Ms Perrine, the HR manager of the respondent which took place on or about 15 June 2022. However, he disagreed with the assertion Ms Perrine asked him whether he wanted to make a workers' compensation claim. The applicant asserted Ms Perrine asked if he was okay, to which he said he was fine but had some pain when he walked but could carry on with his employment by using painkillers.
5. When it was suggested by Mr Coombes the applicant had continued on normal duties until 26 September 2023, the applicant disputed that being the case, and instead indicated he had he utilised a lot of office duties, and the club brought him a back brace. The statement evidence of the respondent's witnesses also confirmed such a brace was brought for the applicant.
6. The applicant stated he had utilised several younger club employees to help him moving items in the course of his employment, though he admitted he could attend to his normal duties with some assistance and kept going to the best of his ability.
7. The applicant admitted that in or about October 2022, he asked the respondent's CEO Mr Gavinel for a pay rise. The applicant stated Mr Gavinel had asked him to put his request in writing and when pressed, denied that he was capable of carrying out all of the duties set out in his letter requesting pay rise. Rather, the applicant stated he required assistance with his duties and took painkillers together with utilising a back brace provided to him by the respondent in or about mid 2023.
8. The applicant admitted he had resorted to self-medicating with his daughter's Endone, despite not having been prescribed it. It was suggested by Mr Coombes that had the applicant in fact been self-medicating in this manner that he would have gone to see his GP sometime between June 2022 and September 2023 when he injured his hip in a fall at home. The applicant denied this was the case. The applicant stated he simply wanted to work and did not want to risk losing his job by taking time off work in circumstances where he had dependent children and a wife took after.
9. Mr Coombes suggested to the applicant that he could perform his normal duties upon his return after the fall in June 2022 until his injury at home in September 2023, and it was only after that rib injury that he has become unable to carry out his employment. The applicant denied this was the case, and said he modified his duties at work between June 2022 and September 2023 and enlisted the help of fellow employees to get work done.
10. When re-examined by Mr Young, the applicant concerted he only made a claim in relation to his back injury in November 2023 when he had cortisone injections. Stated he delayed making a claim for this long because he loved his job and he knew the club wanted him to return on full duties. The applicant stated his back was in a similar condition from the time he returned to work in June 2022 until he made his claim in November 2023.

1. Mr Young noted that as the applicant's claim was made within three years of the date of injury, s 261(4)(a) of the 1998 Act applies. That section states:

"(1) Compensation cannot be recovered unless a claim for the compensation has been made within six months after the injury or accident happened or, in the case of death, within six months after the date of death...

(4) The failure to make a claim within the period required by this section is not about the recovery of compensation if it is found that the failure was occasioned by ignorance, mistake, absence from the State or other reasonable calls, and either:

(a). The claim is made within three years after the injury or accident happened, or in the case of death, within three years after the date of death."

1. Mr Young stated the applicant delayed making his claim owing to ignorance, namely his belief that there would be consequences if he made such a claim in the workplace. As

Mr Young noted, rightly or wrongly this was the applicant's belief and it is sufficient for the provisions of s 261(4)(a) to apply. 2. Mr Young also submitted a big part of the reason was the applicant wanted to keep working, and that he was a stoic who soldiered on because he did not want to lose his job in circumstances where his wife was partially dependent on him and he had one daughter studying nursing and the other in high school. 3. Mr Young noted the applicant underwent a CT scan of his lumbar spine in June of 2022, at which time the radiologist recommended a cortisone injection. However, the applicant wished to avoid having such injection and to keep working. Mr Young submitted this was consistent with the applicant being a genuine hard worker and fed into his mistaken belief that his loyalty by not making a claim would be rewarded. 4. For the respondent, Mr Coombes submitted the applicant was not ignorant of his rights, as he was as the evidence disclosed he was aware of his entitlements, having been informed of them by his GP when he consulted Dr Jam Nagarwalla on 16 June 2022. Moreover, Mr Coombes noted the applicant was aware that other co-workers had made claims in the past and suitable duties have been provided to them without any negative ramifications in their employment. Indeed, the applicant had attested to this being the case in his statement dated 25 September 2024. 5. Mr Coombes noted the applicant had not positively identified any other employee of the respondent of whom he had firsthand knowledge of having negative ramifications after lodging a workers' compensation claim. He submitted the suggestion the applicant would be terminated if he made a claim would carry no weight and that there was no reasonable excuse for the respondent's delay making his claim and as a result, the applicant had not satisfied his onus of proof. 6. On balance, having found the applicant to be a witness of truth, I accept he was of the view - albeit mistaken - that there will be negative ramifications to his employment if he made a workers' compensation claim. The applicant is anything but a malingerer. He persisted with heavy and repetitive work, despite having assistance with it and modifying his duties, for over a year. He is plainly not someone motivated by greed or looking to maximise his entitlement to compensation. 7. I have no difficulty accepting the evidence from the respondent's witnesses that there were no negative ramifications for the applicant had he made a claim. However, that evidence is irrelevant as to whether the applicant held a genuine belief that there would be. Having accepted his evidence, I find he held such a belief and accordingly his failure to make a claim was brought about by a combination of mistake and ignorance on his part and therefore the provisions of s 261(4)(a) of the 1998 Act are satisfied.

1. There is no issue the applicant suffered an injury to his lumbar spine on 11 June 2022 as alleged. The respondent alleges the effects of that injury lasted only a matter of days or weeks, following which he had resolved and the reason for the applicant's absence from work on an ongoing basis was instead his fall at home in which he injured his right hip in September 2023.
2. Mr Young submitted there was no evidence the applicant's injury sustained in June 2022 had resolved and took the Commission to the CT scan which was carried out on 15 June 2022. Relevantly, that scan demonstrated:

"An L3-4, a minor broad based disc bulge mildly indents the anterior faecal sack. No for terminal stenosis or nerve root compromise is seen. Facet joint OA is noted.

At L4-L5, a small broad based disc bulge with a terminal extension which is greater on the left side, congenitally short pedicles, mild facet joint OA and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy result in mild canal stenosis, mild right side of that moderate left side of the foraminal stenosis, with irritation of the emerging left L4 nerve root.

At L5-S1, a small broad profile posterior disc protrusion mildly indents the anterior faecal sack. No foraminal stenosis or nerve root compromise is seen. Mild facet joint degenerative changes noted."

1. The reporting radiologist recommended that if conservative treatment failed, a CT guided left L4 perineural injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic may be contemplated for a trial of symptomatic relief.
2. Mr Young next took the Commission to a further CT of the lumbar spine which was carried out on 26 October 2023. This was, of course, after the applicant's fall at home in September of 2023 at which time he heard his hip. The findings on that examination were as follows:

"At L4/5, there is a posterior disc bulge with mild central canal stenosis. There is moderate bilateral facet joint OA. There is moderate left and mild right foraminal stenosis.

At L5/S1, there is a posterior disc bulge with mild central canal stenosis and minimal bilateral foraminal stenosis. There is early bilateral facet joint OA."

1. Mr Young submitted, and I accept that the pathology in the applicant's lumbar spine was broadly identical between the two scans, and it was apparent it had not resolved. He submitted that was consistent with the applicant continuing to suffer from his lumbar spine injury, as he had received no substantive treatment between the two scans.
2. The applicant came to have a corticosteroid injection in his lumbar spine on 8 November 2023. According to his evidence, which I accept that provided him with some temporary relief.
3. On 23 April 2024, the applicant underwent an MRI of his lumbar spine which again showed findings broadly consistent with those of the earlier CT scans.
4. Mr Young submitted the pathological findings in relation to the lumbar spine were broadly consistent, and the Commission would accept the injury has been ongoing and has caused the applicant incapacity, particularly when combined with his hernia injury which he submitted occurred as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment, and the applicant's secondary psychological injury.
5. Mr Young submitted the combined effect of the applicant's lumbar spine and hernia together with the secondary psychological injury has rendered the applicant totally incapacitated for employment for the period claimed.
6. The applicant relied on the opinion of Dr Abdal Khan, IME in relation to his psychological injury. Dr Khan diagnosed persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress and when asked to comment on causation said:

"I do believe that Mr Bradwell's psychiatric/psychological condition is consequential to his physical condition. As a result of the impact of his lumbar spine and lower abdominal injuries and associated chronic pain on his day to day functioning in future life, Mr Bradwell experienced gradual deterioration in his mental state and functioning that have led him to develop the psychiatric/psychological condition of persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress."

1. Mr Young submitted the respondent's reliance on the rib injury suffered in September 2023 should not be given any weight. He noted all of the doctors in the proceedings were aware of the presence of the rib injury, yet attribute the applicant's incapacity to his lumbar spine, hernia and to the secondary psychological condition, all of which they say are work related.
2. Mr Young submitted, and I accept that the acute injury in June of 2022 was the cause of the applicant's lumbar spine injury, and in particular, I note the pathology between the scans taken in June 2022 and November 2024 is consistent.
3. There is no issue the respondent provided the applicant with a back brace in 2023. That much is attested to by Mr Gavinel in his statement dated 9 April 2024 at [32]. However,

Mr Gavinel's belief was the brace was bought for the applicant as a preventative measure to assist him with his duties as head cellarman rather than as a result of any injury the applicant had suffered. For his part, the applicant indicated he requested the back brace because of ongoing difficulties with his lumbar spine. 4. In my view, this is an important piece of evidence. There seems little doubt that from Mr Gavinel's perspective the applicant was able to continue working in his role and carried out his duties more than adequately. The applicant, however, indicates he modified his duties and enlisted the help of other staff members when carrying out heavy aspects of them. 5. I have no difficulty accepting Mr Gavinel was doing his best in providing his statement and make no adverse finding as to his motives, or indeed those of the other witnesses who have provided statements for the respondent. However, given their more senior roles within the club, it is apparent Mr Gavinel, Ms Perrine and Mr Judge would not have constantly observed the applicant working, and very likely would not have known the extent, if any of the applicant's issues, particularly in circumstances where he was attempting to persist at work despite his ongoing issues. 6. On balance, on the question of the back brace I find in favour of the applicant's version. That is, he requested it because he was continuing to suffer back pain after the injury in June 2022. It would, in my view, be unlikely that someone who has worked in the role which the applicant had for many years to suddenly request a back brace from his employer were he not suffering some symptoms in his lumbar spine. In light of Mr Gavinel's quite appropriate concession that there was no issue the incident on 11 June 2022 took place and the applicant was involved in it, I find the applicant was continuing to suffer from lumbar spine symptoms up to September 2023 when he eventually left work following an incident which took place at his home when he injured his hip. 7. In my view, the applicant's evidence that he continued to suffer symptoms in his lower back throughout 2022 and 2023 is supported by the purchase by the respondent of a back brace for him. It seems incongruous that such a device would have been bought for the applicant were he not still suffering from the effects of his injury. 8. Overall, I accept the applicant as a worker who attempted to persist to the best of his ability despite the problems with his lumbar spine. 9. Given the persistent pathology in the applicant's lumbar spine, I prefer the opinions of Dr Conrad, IME for the applicant and his treating doctors who ascribe those symptoms to his work injury. And so doing, I do not prefer the opinion of Dr Rimmer, IME for the respondent, who said in his report dated 14 May 2024 that the effects of any injury to the applicant's lumbar spine have passed. 10. Having accepted the applicant as a witness of truth and noting the consistent pathology found that his lumbar spine, the provision to him of a lumbar spine brace by the respondent itself and his self-medicating for an extended period, I find the applicant's lumbar spine injury is ongoing.

1. Dr Garvey, general surgeon and IME for the respondent indicated the finding of a hernia was an incidental one and not caused by the applicant's employment. By contrast, the applicant's treating surgeon Prof Pathma-Nathan took an accurate history of both the applicant's duties at work and the event in June of 2022. When asked to provide an opinion on causation, Prof Nathan said:

"The injury as described which involved aiding an emergency patient including having had to lift him resulting in these injuries. This occurs on a [background of] long-term employment needs of heavy lifting in the course of his usual duties. I cannot comment on his spinal injuries, but it is likely that he developed his umbilical hernia as a result of the lifting, although there would be an element of wear and tear due to his long-term lifting. It is often the case that a single event will bring an underlying hernia to befall...

The hernia is over 1 cm in size and while that is diminutive, the size does not reflect how symptomatic hernia can be or necessarily affect symptoms. Often a small hernia can be more symptomatic than a large hernia. The simple fact that there is a hernia present and is symptomatic warrants surgical management...

The umbilical hernia is not the reason that this patient is completely unfit to return to work which is probably more related to his spinal injury. If the umbilical hernia was his only injury, then I would recommend that he can work until he has surgery after which he would need two weeks off work and then two weeks of light duties before returning to full activity. While he is waiting for surgery, he is able to work to full capacity. The reason he is not working is not due to the hernia."

1. Prof Nathan's opinion is a persuasive one. As a treating surgeon, his views are entitled to be given significant weight unless it can be shown that he has been provided with either an inconsistent history or that he has made an error in his reasoning process. No such error has been demonstrated, and the history provided to him is consistent. This being so, I prefer his views and note his candour in indicating the hernia of itself is not causative of the applicant's incapacity.
2. Nevertheless, on balance it is apparent there is a hernia present as a result of the nature and conditions of the applicant's employment up to November 2023, and I accept it is requiring of treatment and contributes in some small way to the applicant's ongoing incapacity.

1. The respondent's IME, Dr Bisht providing an opinion in relation to the applicant's psychological condition dated 16 May 2025. In that report, he diagnosed the applicant as suffering a major depressive episode.
2. Dr Bisht, appropriately in my view, conceded the applicant's psychological injury was secondary to that of his back, and whether it was work related would depend on findings in relation to the cause of the back injury.
3. Having accepted the applicant's ongoing back problems were caused by his employment, it follows even on the respondent's own case that the applicant's secondary psychological injury is also work related.
4. According to Dr Bisht, the applicant requires monthly appointments with a psychiatrist and fortnightly appointments with a psychologist for approximately 12 months. He stated that based on a psychiatric perspective, the applicant will be able to work four hours a day, three days a week with significant restrictions. Dr Bisht opined the applicant is not psychologically fit to perform his pre-injury duties.
5. The applicant's IME Dr Kahn noted that although the applicant initially stopped working due to his physical injuries, the secondary psychological injury is a significant factor to his ongoing incapacity for work. That opinion is broadly consistent with Dr Bisht, who noted the applicant's purely psychological impairment was sufficient to reduce his work hours to 12 hours per week.
6. On balance, I have no difficulty finding the applicant suffers a partial incapacity for employment as a result of his psychological injury and has for the entirety of the period claimed.

1. Given the broad agreement between the psychological experts that the applicant is significantly impaired for employment as a result purely of his mental health issues, I find when combined with his lumbar spine and hernia that he is totally incapacitated for employment, and has been for the period claimed.
2. Although Mr Coombes submitted the applicant's evidence and the radiological scans which show his injury to the back had remained consistent a suggestive of him having full capacity for employment given he worked from June 2022 until September 2023, I accept the applicant continued for as long as he could as a result of his back injury until such time as he could no longer work. When combined with the effects of his psychological injury, in my view the overwhelming preponderance of the medical and lay evidence establishes the applicant has discharged his onus of proving that he has been totally incapacitated for the entirety of the period claimed.
3. Accordingly, orders will be made for the payment of weekly compensation by the respondent on the basis of total incapacity from 6 November 2023 to date, allowing for periodic indexation.
4. The applicant pleaded his pre-injury average weekly earnings at $1,646.55 in a schedule attached to the Application. No evidence was lodged to challenge that calculation, and accordingly I accept it, subject to periodic indexation.
5. The respondent will therefore be ordered to pay the applicant weekly compensation as follows:

(a) from 6 November 2023 to 5 February 2024 pursuant to s 36 of the 1987 Act at the rate of $1,564.22 per week, and

(b) from 6 February 2024 to date and continuing pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act at the rate of $1,317.24 per week, subject to periodic indexation as calculated by the parties.

1. For the above reasons, the Commission will make the findings and orders set out on page 1 and 2 of the Certificate of Determination.