18 January 2024 pursuant to s 145 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). 5. The applicant in these proceedings disputes payment of the requested sum raising issues of injury, causation, worker, substantial contributing factor and capacity. There is no issue that the applicant did not have a policy of insurance that would respond to a claim of this type being made by Mr Lanjani. 6. By way of separate proceedings namely W27518/24, Mr Lanjani sought an order from the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) that proposed arthroscopy surgery to his right shoulder is reasonably necessary and should be paid by the applicant and/or first respondent in these proceedings. W27518/24 was joined to W24720/24. As the matters proceeded, the application in respect of surgery was discontinued. 7. The parties agreed that the evidence in matter no. W27518/24 was relevant to the present proceedings and accordingly the evidence in that matter is subsumed into this matter. 8. Following the hearing of the matter, Mr Lanjani prepared his 2025 tax documentation and submissions were received in respect of the admission and/or relevance of that evidence.

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

(a) injury and substantial contributing factor;

(b) worker, and

(c) capacity.

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.

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

(a) In matter no. 27518/24:

(i) Application to Resolve a Dispute, and

(ii) Reply to Application to Resolve a Dispute.

(b) In matter no. 24740/24:

(i) Application to Resolve a Dispute;

(ii) Reply from the First respondent;

(iii) late documents dated 17 March 2025, 21 March 2025, 28 May 2025,

4 June 2025, 27 August 2025, 15 September 2025 and

18 September 2025;

(iv) submissions dated 3 November 2025, and

(v) submissions dated 3 November 2025.

1. Raymond Doyle is in effect the applicant in the proceedings and he trades under the business name of Doylers Painting Pty Limited. He has prepared a statement dated

1 August 2020.[1] 2. Mr Doyle explains that in October 2022 he put an advertisement on Gumtree to which

Mr Lanjani, the worker in the proceedings (the second respondent) responded. Mr Doyle states that between November 2022 to June 2023 Mr Lanjani operated under his own company known as "Brush Brothers" and was apparently claiming GST. Mr Doyle paid

Mr Lanjani through bank transfers to Brush Brothers. 3. Mr Doyle says that after June 2023 Mr Lanjani decided to no longer claim GST and

Mr Doyle started transferring to another nominated account until 18 January 2024. Mr Doyle explains that Mr Lanjani was not provided a uniform to wear. 4. Mr Doyle has provided an email dated 31 January 2024 which was sent to Safework New South Wales.[2] Mr Doyle explains in that email what he understood occurred on

17 January 2024. He states that he received a phone call from one of his clients informing him that they were cancelling a job that was meant to start on 19 January 2024. 5. On 18 January, Mr Doyle arrived at premises in Chatswood and advised Mr Lanjani and another person there known as 'Alex'[3] that the further job had been cancelled and that there would be no work for a few weeks. Mr Doyle suggested to Mr Lanjani that he try to get work with another company so he would not be out of work for the time. He observed that

Mr Lanjani did not seem happy with the news. 6. Mr Doyle then started working in the garage at the same address, Alex was working on the side of the house and Mr Lanjani was working around the back on his own finishing painting the verandah. Mr Doyle explains that Alex heard Mr Lanjani shout "help" and went around the back of the house to find Mr Lanjani on the ground with an A-frame on top of him. Alex then removed the ladder and checked to see if Mr Lanjani was ok and then went to advise

Mr Doyle of what had occurred. 7. Mr Doyle then tried to assist Mr Lanjani and says that he observed there were no visible signs of injuries, he was responsive and mobile but he did complain of some pain. He asked Mr Lanjani on three separate occasions what had occurred and the response was the same each time, that was that he was on the extension ladder in the pool area and then the ladder started to move left so he jumped from the extension ladder, hit his elbow on the A-frame nearby and landed on his feet. He then fell over and the A-frame fell towards him and banged his head as he put his arm to block the ladder from falling on him. 8. Mr Doyle explains that Mr Lanjani called his partner and also a friend called Joseph and an ambulance was called by Joseph. 9. Mr Doyle is very sceptical about the genuineness of both the fall from the ladder and the claimed ongoing injuries.

1. Mr Lanjani has prepared multiple statements in this dispute, the first dated 20 May 2024[4] and a second dated 15 October 2024.[5]
2. Mr Lanjani in his first statement describes performing his usual duties on 18 January 2024 when he was working on an extension ladder and painting a verandah at a height of around 3m from the ground. The extension ladder slipped and he lost his balance and fell. There was an A-frame ladder nearby and as Mr Lanjani fell to the ground he knocked the A-frame ladder that was next to him and the A-frame ladder fell on top of him.
3. Mr Lanjani said he experienced pain all over his body however noticed it was worse in his neck, both shoulders, right hand and lower back and knees.
4. Mr Lanjani describes that he now experiences constant pain in the base of his neck that extends into both shoulders. He gets paraesthesia in both hands and he continues to have pain which is aggravated with any lifting in his right shoulder.
5. Mr Lanjani describes surgery as recommended by Dr Moopanar and wishes to undergo that surgery. In that statement at paragraph 10 Mr Lanjani says that prior to his work injuries his health was otherwise good and then discloses a fracture of the right ankle which subsequently healed. He also says that he hasn't had any prior workers compensation claim or any other claim for compensation such as car accident or public liability.
6. In the subsequent 'clarifying' statement Mr Lanjani seeks to clarify what is said in relation to his prior medical and claims history. In this statement Mr Lanjani then discloses the difficulties he had in 2019 relating to an assault at work, an injury to his right shoulder in March 2020 when he rode his bike into a concrete column, his referral to Dr Barber, orthopaedic surgeon, in August 2020, pain specialist Dr Danesh on 25 January 2021, a referral to Dr Lieu, orthopaedic surgeon in March 2021, Dr Khan in April 2021.
7. Mr Lanjani also states that he did receive financial support from Accident Health International Insurance for approximately one year. Mr Lanjani then says that by about mid-2022 he was able to return to his full-time duties as a painter and his right shoulder was "fine". Needless to say the evidence in this statement is in direct contradiction to his earlier statement.
8. There is a third statement that addresses the question of the employment arrangement, which for reasons that will become apparent, they are not relevant to my determination.

1. Mr Lanjani was admitted to Royal North Shore Hospital on 18 January 2024.[6] The admitting officer took a history of a fall from a ladder of some 3m. Mr Lanjani complained at that stage of neck pain, left shoulder pain and right heel pain. The attending medical officer explained to Mr Lanjani that the imaging did not show any acute fractures.
2. Mr Lanjani expressed concern about the effects of the injury. He denied any mental health issues before the fall and it was explained to Mr Lanjani that there was no injury related explanation for his symptomatology as the MRI spine and CT scan were all normal. It was suggested he should follow up with his general practitioner (GP) and maybe a psychiatrist.
3. A relevant and significant part of these notes is that there is a reference to a hematoma on the applicant's back.

1. Dr Lim is Mr Lanjani's GP who saw Mr Lanjani shortly after the alleged incident on

18 January 2024. He has prepared a report dated 30 January 2024 to EML Claims.[7] In that report Dr Lim takes a history of Mr Lanjani injuring his neck, shoulder, wrist and back on

18 January 2024. Mr Lanjani provided a history that he was employed by Doylers Painting and Decoration. 2. Mr Lanjani complained of neck pain, shoulder pain, lower back pain which affected his sleep. He also had flashbacks and nightmares with low concentration and mood swings. 3. Dr Lim diagnosed Mr Lanjani as having a cervical spine strain, thoracic spine aggravation, with a bilateral shoulder strain, a lumbar spine strain and bilateral knee strain with an acute stress disorder. The only pre-existing issue disclosed to Dr Lim was that of a right ankle fracture requiring surgery in 2024 and a non-acute T7 spinus fracture on MRI. This is despite a significant history of injury to all these body parts in prior medical treating material.

1. Mr Matek is a psychologist who prepared a report dated 31 January 2025. Mr Matek took a history that Mr Lanjani suffered no psychological or psychiatric history. Mr Matek took a history from Mr Lanjani that he has reduced social activities and is unable to go to the gym and needs assistance to shower. Mr Lanjani had noticed a deterioration in his mental state characterised by anxious and depressive cognition, sleep disturbances, rumination, irritability and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness and fatigue. He also experienced flashbacks and nightmares.

1. Dr Gurr, orthopaedic surgeon, has prepared a report at the request of Mr Lanjani's solicitors and is dated 8 October 2024.[8] Dr Gurr was provided with a significant amount of medical material in preparation for his report. Dr Gurr clearly has an understanding that Mr Lanjani had difficulties in 2019 as he has been provided with the relevant medical material in respect of the treatment of that.
2. Dr Gurr observes that the more recent MRI shows a rotator cuff tear and that there has been a request to arthroscopically repair the tear. Dr Gurr reports that the MRI of the right shoulder taken on 13 September 2021 shows partial thickness, articular surface delaminating tear of the rotator cuff mechanism.
3. Dr Gurr diagnosed Mr Lanjani as having a right shoulder rotator cuff tear with pain and loss of motion with a previous injury in 2021. Dr Gurr says that despite the previous MRI findings in 2021, it would be difficult if not impossible to continue working as a painter if those findings were significantly symptomatic. Dr Gurr does not refer or indeed may not have been aware of a history provided to Dr Khan in 2021 that Mr Lanjani was unable to work for 11 months due to right shoulder symptomatology.
4. Dr Gurr opined that the injury on 18 January 2024 caused cervical spine, lumbar spine and bilateral shoulder injuries as well as the right knee injury. Dr Gurr supported medical treatment by way of arthroscopic surgery.
5. Dr Gurr does not compare the radiology between 2021 and 2024 in order for me to be satisfied that there has been a significant change. He seems to rely upon the applicant reports of pain forming part of his conclusion.

1. Dr Robinson has prepared a report on behalf of iCare dated 24 April 2024.[9] Mr Lanjani complained to Dr Robinson of constant pain in the cervical spine, right shoulder pain, thoracic spine and pain in the right hand. In that consultation Mr Lanjani denied any history of injury or problems prior to the incident. Dr Robinson appears to be aware of a right ankle injury in 2004.
2. Dr Robinson opined that in relation to the proposed surgery as recommended by

Dr Moopanar the pathology was caused by the work-related incident. He also observed

Mr Lanjani had various abnormal illness behaviour traits and signs which had led to some difficulty in him returning to work. He says that the fall from the ladder could easily have caused a tear of the muscles and soft tissues in the areas as described. 3. Dr Robinson has prepared a second report dated 30 July 2024 after now being provided with a history of the 2019 and 2021 conditions in the right shoulder. Dr Robinson states that the information in relation to these pre-existing conditions were not supplied to him by

Mr Lanjani, in fact he denied any history of injury or problems to the right shoulder. 4. Having considered the material, Dr Robinson stated that the veracity of Mr Lanjani's statements is difficult to believe. Dr Robinson opines that at least 50% of Mr Lanjani's conditions are pre-existing, however says that a repair may be indicated, but would not proceed with same because of Mr Lanjani's abnormal illness reaction.

1. Dr Moopanar is Mr Lanjani's treating orthopaedic surgeon. He has prepared a report dated

6 May 2024.[10] Dr Moopanar took a history that Mr Lanjani had "no previous issues with his shoulder". Dr Moopanar suggests an arthroscopic repair of the rotator cuff tendon and thinks that arthroscopy is reasonably necessary treatment. 2. Dr Moonpanar has prepared his report in the context of not being provided with an adequate history of pre-existing symptomatology.

1. Mr Lanjani has failed to disclose any previous injury to his right shoulder in his evidence (save for the subsequent 'clarifying statement'). Mr Macken, who appeared on behalf of

Mr Lanjani in these proceedings provided an outline of submissions regarding the evidence. Those submissions have been filed on the portal. I must say that Mr Macken has carefully looked at the evidence and has persuasively summarised the failure of disclosure from

Mr Lanjani in relation to his evidence. When one looks at the evidence with the assistance of those submissions, it is quite clear that the Mr Lanjani has not provided proper history to any of the experts in this case. 2. It is not necessary for me to outline each and every failure to provide a proper history however it is quite clear that the histories provided to Dr Moopanar,[11] Dr Lim,[12] the hospital,[13] Dr Robinson[14] and Dr Matek.[15] 3. The failures are significant as they indicate that there was no previous psychological or psychiatric history or an injury to the right shoulder, back or neck. 4. The late additional documents dated 18 March 2025 also provide ample evidence of the previous treatment for both shoulder and for psychological symptomatology. There is a mental health care plan prepared in May 2020,[16] there is physiotherapy to the left shoulder and right knee,[17] there is physiotherapy in 2020 for both shoulders.[18] 5. On 15 May 2019 there was an ultrasound-guided injection to the right shoulder.[19] 6. On 30 April 2019 the Mr Lanjani consulted with Dr Mostaphazadeh complaining of right shoulder pain and lower back pain and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder after being assaulted at work. 7. On 2 April 2020 Mr Lanjani consulted with Dr Mostaphazadeh regarding depression and experiencing psychological distress with a new condition having fallen down and having shoulder and knee pain. He had a loss of enjoyment and insomnia, problems with concentration. 8. On 17 April 2020 Mr Lanjani complained to Dr Mostaphazade[20] in relation to his right shoulder pain which had got worse. 9. On 2 June 2020 Mr Lanjani complained to Dr Mostaphazadeh of bilateral shoulder pain. 10. On 29 June 2020 Mr Lanjani complained to Dr Mostaphazadeh while still having pain, requesting an injection for bilateral shoulders. 11. On 11 August 2020 Mr Lanjani told Dr Mostaphazadeh[21] that his shoulder pain had got worse, the right was worse than the left side. 12. On 30 November 2020 Mr Lanjani saw Dr Mostaphazadeh and complained of chronic right shoulder pain with a poor response to physiotherapy. 13. On 20 September 2021 there was an MRI of the right shoulder.[22] 14. In addition, Mr Lanjani was seen by Dr Khan, occupational physician on 19 January 2021. This was at the request of Accident and Health International.[23] The history taken by Dr Khan was Mr Lanjani was a painter for the last six years and was a sole trader. He paints commercial and residential properties. 15. Mr Lanjani complained of a right shoulder injury which occurred when he was riding his bike into a garage. He jolted his right shoulder when he rode his bicycle into the concrete column. Dr Khan suspected there was a rotator cuff tear and cervical radiculopathy and suggested an MRI of the right shoulder and the cervical spine. Dr Khan had an important history that

Mr Lanjani was unable to work for 11 months due to right shoulder symptomatology. 16. In June 2021 Mr Lanjani was referred to Dr Lieu, orthopaedic surgeon in respect of his right shoulder problem. Dr Lieu observed that there had been no improvement in Mr Lanjani's symptoms following a pushbike incident some three months before. Mr Lanjani described constant pain around the anterior aspect of the shoulder with some radiation down the upper arm. There was some numbness on the right and significant loss of motion. 17. Mr Lanjani described being unable to work since the injury and continued to have physiotherapy without benefit. Dr Lieu observed that the MRI scan showed some tendinopathy of the supraspinatus tendon anteriorly along with a cyst in the supraspinatus. There was also some subacromial bursitis. Dr Lieu said that Mr Lanjani had some degenerative changes in his supraspinatus which are causing ongoing problems however his pathology did not explain the severity of his symptoms. He would not recommend any surgical intervention at that stage but focus more on the rotator cuff strengthening program. 18. Needless to say there is extensive reference to pre-existing complaint and treatment to the right shoulder before the alleged index incident which is the focus of this dispute. 19. Mr Lanjani has provided a medical certificate dated 30 April 2019 which certifies him as unfit to work for one week. The injury description relates to him being assaulted at work, with multiple injuries, left shoulder pain, headache, low back pain, left index finger injury and infection together with post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr Lanjani appears to have been referred for a left shoulder ultrasound resulting from that injury. 20. There is a chronic disease management certificate dated 2 April 2020[24] which indicates that Mr Lanjani has a left shoulder and right knee injury together with depression and anxiety. The arrangement in respect of the left shoulder and right knee includes a referral to

Dr Barber, orthopaedic doctor and there is also a psychologist review in relation to depression and anxiety.

1. Mr Lanjani underwent an MRI of both shoulders on 5 February 2024.[25] In respect of the right shoulder there was a partial thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon and mid-insertional tendons of the subscapularis tendons. There was no rotator cuff muscle atrophy or denervation oedema.
2. In respect of the left shoulder there was no rotator cuff tendon tear but there was a sub-acute small tear of the infraspinatus tendon. There was also very minimal synovitis of the rotator interval and there was a suggestion of mild or developing adhesive capsulitis.
3. Of some importance in relation to the radiology, it was agreed by Ms Grotte of counsel, who appeared on behalf of Mr Lanjani that the pathology was similar to that which was performed in 2021. The MRI of the right shoulder taken on 13 September 2021 shows partial thickness, articular surface delaminating tear of the rotator cuff mechanism.

1. The applicant's submissions, unsurprisingly, take great issue with the failure of Mr Lanjani to provide an accurate history in this matter. Mr Macken carefully took me through the significant omissions which includes histories given to various doctors that I have already outlined. This evidently includes the applicant's first statement (paragraphs 10-12), and histories provided to Dr Gurr, Dr Moopanar, Dr Lim, Dr Robinson and others.
2. The applicant then took me to the treating notes from the admission at hospital which were created immediately after the alleged incident. The notes indicate that the imaging did not show any acute fractures. This by itself, I do not rely upon to rule out any other type of injuries.
3. Interestingly there is no reference at all to right shoulder pain and the hospital appears to query whether the mental health issues starting before the fall which Mr Lanjani denied. This is despite the other treating notes, before the alleged fall, disclosing that Mr Lanjani had a longstanding history of depression and anxiety.
4. The hospital notes concluded that there was no injury-related explanation for Mr Lanjani's complained symptomatology and therefore that it was more likely to be psychological. It was recommended that there be a follow up with a GP after discharge and then maybe a psychiatrist.
5. In cases such as this the treating orthopaedic surgeon would have significant import and unfortunately in this case Dr Moopanar has not got any history that is adequate in respect of what Mr Lanjani experienced before the alleged fall. Indeed, in his report he states "No mention of any past history or current medications in the notes provided. The work injury involved a fall from a ladder which has resulted in his current condition."
6. The difficulty is that the doctor's opinion has very little weight when there is no disclosure of any previous shoulder injuries.
7. In respect of any pre-existing psychological injuries, it is quite clear in the Kenthurst Medical Centre notes that there was reference to Mr Lanjani suffering from ADD, anxiety and depression at a time contrary to his representation to various doctors.[26] On 15 July 2023 there is a reference to depression with Mr Lanjani having lost his uncle two weeks ago. On 23 July 2024[27] Mr Lanjani provides a history to Dr Beseeri of "history of severe anxiety, depression, seen a psychologist for months". A history of seeing a psychologist for months is inconsistent with no pre-existing psychological symptomatology before the fall. Consistent with that entry is a referral for psychological treatment[28] on 23 January 2024 where reference is for "anxiety and depression, recently lost his uncle". There is no reference at all to the workplace injury.
8. The Ararat Medical Centre notes[29] also are quite instructive. On 21 April 2020 there is a history of "anger issues, problem with job, no social life, taking antidepressants". Then on

27 April 2020 there is a reference to Mr Lanjani taking antidepressants. The applicant submitted it is inconceivable that one would forget taking medication of that type. 9. Mr Macken also referred to the physiotherapy notes which referred to treatment for right shoulder pain[30] in April 2020. At page 14 of those same documents there is a report from the physiotherapist about pain in the left shoulder and in terms of functionality reports that

Mr Lanjani has difficulty lifting left arm up and difficulty to walk more than five minutes. Then on 15 May 2019 there is an ultrasound guided injection into the right shoulder, something which was submitted by the applicant would be very difficult to forget when asked for history. Further, there was an MRI of the right shoulder dated 20 September 2021, similarly something that it is unlikely to be forgotten. Mr Macken submitted that the pathology disclosed in that MRI is very similar if not identical to the pathology in the 2024 MRI. I observe that no submissions were made to the contrary in relation to this, rather the second respondent conceded that this, (that is, that there was a partial tear of the supraspinatus in both of those MRIs). 10. Mr Macken submitted that the report of Dr Khan on 30 April 2021 is also instructive. That report contained a history that Mr Lanjani experienced severity of pain in his right shoulder joint of 7-8/10 together with a further history that Mr Lanjani had not worked for 11 months. 11. Mr Macken submitted that what that means is that Mr Lanjani has had a shoulder condition that precluded him from working for 11 months, and was in severe pain. This is a history that has not been provided to any of the medical practitioners who saw him. 12. Mr Macken drew my attention to the bicycle incident where Mr Lanjani fell off his pushbike and landed heavily on his right shoulder. The clinical notes then continue with right shoulder pain which includes a certificate of work capacity of 30 April 2021 which sets out multiple complaints including right shoulder pain, lower back pain, post-traumatic stress disorder and then refers to the right shoulder as having restricted range of motion. Mr Macken had helpfully summarised many of these references to ongoing shoulder pain and psychological distress in his submissions which were of use to me in this matter. 13. Ms Grotte of counsel appeared on behalf of Mr Lanjani in these proceedings. Her submissions commenced with looking at Mr Lanjani's statement which clearly states that he was working at the time he fell from the extension ladder, painting. It was not disputed by

Mr Doyle, that is that Mr Lanjani was working at a balcony painting at the time of the alleged incident. 14. Ms Grotte suggested that there should be an inference drawn in respect of the failure to call 'Alex' as a witness on behalf of Mr Lanjani on the basis that he says that when he found

Mr Lanjani he was on the ground with a ladder on top of him. There is however no evidence to my mind that Alex is an employee of the applicant's company. I decline to make such a finding in those circumstances. 15. Ms Grotte urged me to consider that there are multiple references to Mr Lanjani falling 2 to 3m off a ladder, so he is consistently telling people that there was a fall. In particular, I was taken to the hospital final report[3] where there is history taken of a fall from a 3m ladder, loss of sensation and motor function to the right leg, spinal haematoma, other cord compression injury. 16. Ms Grotte asked me to consider that because Mr Lanjani presented with a spinal haematoma, that is bruising, and he has lost motor function to the right leg, then it should be inferred that the fall did in fact occur. Further, the fact that he was kept in hospital for three days is contraindicative of there being no injury to him. 17. Ms Grotte suggested that there should be a finding that something did occur in the way described by Mr Lanjani on that day and the next question arises whether something happened to Mr Lanjani's right shoulder in the accident. 18. I agree that the haematoma is instructive in this matter, it provides corroborative evidence that there was a fall on the date alleged. There is no evidence to conclude that the haematoma was caused by anything other than a fall. The existence of bruising at a time where there is an allegation of a fall suggest that it did occur temporally with the fall. There is nothing in the notes that would cause a conclusion to the contrary. 19. I therefore accept, on balance that a fall did occur on 18 January 2024. In making that finding, I am acutely aware that a finding of injury, as alleged by Mr Lanjani, is a completely different issue. 20. I was then taken to Dr Lim's report of 30 January 2024 which indicates Mr Lanjani was complaining of bilateral shoulder pain and neck pain, right hand pain, lower back pain, bilateral knee pain, sleep disturbance and flashbacks. Dr Lim then refers Mr Lanjani to physiotherapy because of the ongoing pain that he has. Dr Lim further refers Mr Lanjani for an orthopaedic surgeon on 26 February 2024. In part of that referral Dr Lim comments that there appears to be developing adhesive capsulitis. 21. In relation to the second statement made by Mr Lanjani, that is the correcting statement,

Ms Grotte asked that I should simply read this document as a document which clarifies the evidence, but should not be read as addressing a lie. 22. The difficulty I have with this submission, and one that I raised with Ms Grotte in the course of her submissions, is that it is not just a matter of Mr Lanjani preparing a statement which addresses some inconsistency in the evidence, it is Mr Lanjani addressing evidence which is completely at odds with the factual matrix that I find when I look at the treating evidence before 2024. 23. The statement does not provide any reasoning as to why on these multiple attendances at various doctors and when executing the original statement, the correct information and history was not given. Indeed, to the contrary the incorrect history was given on a repetitive basis. There is simply no explanation for the significant multiple omissions. 24. Ms Grotte in reply referred me to Mr Lanjani's evidence that by mid-2022 his shoulder was ok and he was able to return to his painting duties and was not troubled by it. The difficulty in this small piece of evidence is that I have little faith in accepting evidence from Mr Lanjani when his evidence has been troubled by a failure to give a proper history up to that point. I do take on board that he was able to work sometimes five days a week and paint on various work of houses and that is something that I bear in mind when I make my findings. I also am aware that Mr Lanjani did not work for 11 months in 2021 when his right shoulder was troubling him. 25. Ms Grotte submitted that what I should really look at is the difference in presentation from

Mr Lanjani, that is from his 2019-2021 presentation to his 2024 presentation. It was conceded at the same time that on MRI imaging there doesn't seem to be much of a difference but what is different is how he is presenting and he now requires surgery. 26. The fact that Mr Lanjani now requires surgery to my mind is of little assistance. It is quite clear that he was in severe pain back in 2020 and 2021 and it is not until he saw

Dr Moopanar in 2024 that Dr Moonpanar turned his mind to the question of surgery.

Mr Lanjani did not see Dr Moopanar in 2019 or 2020 or 2021. 27. It is true that the applicant consulted with Dr Lieu in 2021 regarding his right shoulder and

Dr Lieu recommended conservative treatment and not surgery at that stage. It is difficult for me to make a finding in relation to any pathological change when there are different treating surgeons. 28. Ms Grotte referred to the fact that there are other body parts not just the right shoulder that are claimed in respect of the injurious event. That includes the left shoulder and the leg and neck. 29. The difficulty I have is that there really seems to be a lack of medical findings in relation to these other complaints, indeed when being discharged from hospital there was little if any pathology recorded. These other body parts are also the subject of complaint before the relevant index injury. 30. The position I am left in is that there is almost a complete failure for the experts in this case to have a proper history of the applicants physical and psychological symptomatology before the fall. 31. In Hancock, Beazley[31] JA said this at [82]:

"Although not bound by the rules of evidence, there can be no doubt that the Commission is required to be satisfied that expert evidence provides a satisfactory basis upon which the Commission can make its findings. For that reason, an expert's report will need to conform, in a sufficiently satisfactory way, with the usual requirements for expert evidence. As the authorities make plain, even in evidence based jurisdictions, that does not require strict compliance with each and every feature referred to by Heydon JA in Makita to be set out in each and every report. In many cases, certain aspects to which his Honour referred will not be in dispute. A report ought not be rejected for that reason alone."

1. There is therefore a significant lack of reliable evidence in this dispute.
2. The second respondent was not called as a witness to these proceedings and failed to give any evidence. The failure to adduce any evidence from that party or failure to cross-examine does not prevent a party from making submissions on an issue of credit provided that those issues have been fairly and adequately flagged or raised in the evidence and the worker had a reasonable option to respond to them.
3. To my mind it is quite clear that Mr Lanjani's credit had been fairly and adequately flagged by the applicant and indeed in the process of submissions I have flagged that squarely with the parties as well.[32] It is not necessary to allow cross-examination for a finding of credit adverse to a party can be made.[33]
4. In this case there are so many inconsistencies in the evidence and the credit of the second respondent is impossible to ignore. His Honour Judge Keating in Brines v Westgate Logistics Pty Limited[34] cautioned about the care one must take when assessing issues of credit:

"Where a worker has given untruthful evidence the arbitrator must carefully assess the rest of his evidence in order to determine his honesty and reliability. Some of the evidence may have been acceptable because other independent or objective evidence confirmed it. However, where a worker's evidence was not independently supported it clearly must be assessed with great care to determine whether it could properly be accepted as proof of any other matter that was an issue in the proceedings."

1. In this case I am urged by the applicant in the proceedings to discount any evidence that the second respondent has given on the basis that he has deliberately misled various experts in this case with a failure to give a proper history in relation to any right shoulder injury and/or psychological disturbance before the relevant events in 2024.
2. I have great concern in relation to the second respondent's credit. The failure to report previous treatment which was significant to my mind creates a great doubt as to what I can accept what the second respondent says at all in respect of any matter. Not only was there prior significant treatment, it was also invasive treatment which included referrals to orthopaedic specialists, injections, physiotherapy and regular GP treatment. The psychological symptomatology was also treated quite regularly and those enunciations were in the treating notes of the GP. Where that leaves this case is that I have little faith in relying on anything that Mr Lanjani says.
3. I am therefore left to look at corroborative material, if there be any to support Mr Lanjani's evidence. It seems to me that there is a small amount of corroborative evidence that

Mr Lanjani did indeed fall. The treating notes of the hospital indicate that there was a haematoma on Mr Lanjani's back. This to my mind suggests that something did indeed occur on that day. The effect of this however is limited. 4. In Trustees of the Society of St Vincent de Paul (NSW) v Maxwell James Kear as administrator of the Estate of Anthony John Kear,[35] Deputy President Roche (as he was then) observed:

"The authorities establish that a 'personal injury' is a sudden and ascertainable or dramatic physiological change or disturbance of the normal physiological state (Gleeson CJ and Kirby J in Kennedy Cleaning Services Pty Limited v. Petkoska [2000] HCA 45 at [39]. In other words as stated at [81] in North Coast Area Health Service v. Felstead [2011] NSWCCPD 51, it is 'a sudden identifiable pathological change' ...

The nature of a personal injury is well illustrated in the authorities where the following have been held to be personal injuries; a sudden rupture of blood vessels and consequent cerebral haemorrhage arising from congenital weakness."

1. I am left in a position where it is impossible to delineate what has arisen as a result of any fall and any ongoing effects of that fall. The egg can simply not be unscrambled.
2. I find it curious that Mr Lanjani has instructed his GP to not provide treating notes in circumstances where it is evident that those treating notes provide a significantly different history to that which is given to various treaters and experts post-2024. This by itself is not determinative of any submission but does support my observations in relation to credit.
3. In those circumstances I am not satisfied that the second respondent suffered an injury within the meaning of s 4 of the 1987 Act as claimed for which payments should be made.
4. I also observe that due to the significant credit issues clearly articulated and established in this dispute that even if I were to find some of the injures were established, it is impossible for me to rely upon Mr Lanjani for an accurate history as to any incapacity that follows the event.
5. In making my findings I am aware that the burden of proof falls at the feet of the applicant. I am satisfied that they have discharged the burden for reasons I have articulated.
6. For reasons articulated in this decision, it is unnecessary for me to determine issues such as worker or capacity.

[5] Application Matter No. W27518/24 p 4.

[8] Application Matter No. W27518/24, p 30.

[9] Application Matter No. W27518/24, p 56.

[10] Application Matter No. 27518/24, p 101.

[31] Hancock v East Coast Timber Products Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 11 (Hancock).

[32] _Matar & Anor v Zeineddin_e [2008] NSWWCCPD 51 at [66]; Redman Holdings Pty Limited trading as Hibiscus Gardens Caravan Park v Lee [2010] NSWCCPD 4 at [146].

[33] Halilovic v Paper Australia Pty Limited [2008] NSWCCPD 80.