29 November 2024 in the course of his employment with ESP. 2. Mr Zhu claims that he injured his lower back on 29 November 2024 when lifting a heavy item while undertaking work for ESP at a residential home in Northmead. 3. The amount of $35,192.20 set out in the notice dated 10 June 2025 comprises an amount of $19,121.58 for weekly payments of compensation paid from 23 January 2025 and

28 May 2025, and an amount of $16,070.62 for medical expenses incurred for the period from 25 December 2024 to 20 May 2025. 4. ESP does not dispute that Mr Zhu sustained that injury in the course of his employment but disputes liability to pay any of the amount claimed by way of reimbursement by the first respondent on the following grounds:

(a) the medical evidence and opinions relied upon by the first respondent and

Mr Zhu that has allowed for the payment of workers compensation benefits to or on behalf of Mr Zhu has not been provided in a fair climate, and

(b) Mr Zhu has not been incapacitated for work to the extent that is claimed by

Mr Zhu as a result of his work injury.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

1. 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. This matter was listed for conciliation and arbitration on 24 November 2025. Mr Robison appeared for ESP. Mr Doak appeared for the first respondent. Mr Stephen Hickey appeared for Mr Zhu.
3. Mr Robison made an application to cross-examine Mr Zhu in regard to the following issues:

(a) the extent of problems which Mr Zhu had experienced with his lower back prior to the injury sustained on 29 November 2024, and

(b) the extent of incapacity alleged by Mr Zhu.

1. I allowed cross-examination on the extent of incapacity alleged by Mr Zhu, but not in regard to previous problems which Mr Zhu had experienced with his lower back because that issue could be adequately addressed from the material before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and there has been no competing medical opinion provided by ESP.
2. Mr Robison was able to complete his submissions following the cross-examination of Mr Zhu, but there was insufficient time available for submissions to be made by Mr Doak and

Mr Hickey, or any submissions in reply by Mr Robison. A timetable was therefore set for written submissions to be filed and served by both respondents, and any submissions in reply by ESP, before the Christmas shutdown.

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

(a) Application and attached documents;

(b) Reply filed by the first respondent;

(c) Reply filed by the second respondent;

(d) Application to Lodge Additional Documents (ALAD) filed by the second respondent on 7 November 2025;

(e) ALAD filed by the first respondent on 11 November 2025;

(f) ALAD filed by ESP on 20 November 2025;

(g) ALAD filed by ESP on 28 November 2025 (pursuant to a Direction issued by the Commission);

(h) written submissions filed by the first respondent on 3 December 2025;

(i) written submissions filed by the second respondent on 17 December 2025, and

(j) written submissions in reply filed by ESP on 23 December 2025.

1. Mr Zhu has provided statements dated 1 March 2025 and 6 November 2025, and he also gave evidence by way of cross-examination at the hearing on 24 November 2025.
2. In his statement dated 1 March 2025, Mr Zhu states: "I have never had any previous problems prior to my current situation". He states that he had been employed as an apprentice electrician with ESP since 5 October 2023.
3. Mr Zhu states that he continued working for ESP after the injury on 29 November 2024 until 23 December 2024, but: "I was not in good working condition" because his back was still sore and painful. He states: "I haven't been back to work since then".
4. In his further statement dated 6 November 2025, Mr Zhu states that he continued to perform limited work for the T & Z Family Pty Ltd after 23 December 2024, but he never drew salaries or dividends from T & Z Family Pty Ltd. He states that these jobs were simple and he would usually work one to two shifts per month, with the shifts only lasting 10 to 30 minutes. He also states that he usually had another person to help him. Mr Zhu also states that another reason for doing this work was the financial pressure that he was under following the work injury.
5. There are copies of invoices rendered by Zoe Wu Family Trust in the ALAD filed by the first respondent for electrical work undertaken on 27 December 2024 ($250), 7 January 2025 ($150) and 28 April 2025 ($198).
6. There are also deposits recorded in the Business Transaction Account from the Commonwealth Bank for Zongquan Zhu and Jing Wu as Trustees for Zoe Wu Family Trust with references to electrical work on 17 January 2025 ($180, $275 and $165),

29 January 2025 ($205), 28 February 2025 ($572), 14 March 2025 ($418), 25 March ($440), 22 April 2025 ($180) and 30 April 2025 ($198). 7. In the ALAD filed by ESP there is an Apprenticeship/Traineeship Training Contract dated

15 April 2025 which is signed by Sam Zhong as representative of Sam Electrical Services Pty Ltd and Mr Zhu, which declares that Mr Zhu is employed by Sam Electrical Services Pty Ltd. 8. Mr Zhu states that TAFE requires continuous updates on Skillstracker, otherwise his course will be suspended. He states that he felt helpless and anxious and asked his friend Sam in mid-March 2025 to sign his Skillstracker so that he could continue the TAFE course. 9. Mr Zhu states that he realised what he did was dishonest and on 17 September 2025 he met with his head teacher at TAFE and told his teacher that he had done the wrong thing and that he was not actually working. Mr Zhu understood from his head teacher that the information on Skillstracker would be altered to confirm this. 10. Mr Zhu confirmed in cross-examination that he did work for his family business, T and Z Family Trust, after he sustained injury on 29 November 2024, but did not undertake any other work or employment during the period that is the subject of the notice issued by the first respondent. He said that he would do a job for T and Z Family Trust every two to three weeks, and it would usually take an hour and sometimes less than that. 11. Mr Zhu had provided copies of bank accounts to ESP in response to a Notice for Production served by ESP dated 3 October 2025. However, he conceded in cross-examination that he held an account with the National Australia Bank and statements from that account had not been provided in answer to the Notice for Production. He also conceded that there were records of income for work which he had performed in the bank statements from the National Australia Bank. 12. Bank statements from the National Australia bank were called for and produced, and Mr Zhu was cross-examined on some of the contents of those statements. Those bank statements were subsequently attached to an ALAD filed by ESP on 28 November 2025. 13. Mr Zhu said that entries of deposits of $7,632.50 on 19 March 2025 and $3,532.20 on

8 April 2025 for "ELECO MAX PTY LTD ELECO MAX ALUMINIUM ORDER" were payments to him for arranging the importing of aluminium material from China. 14. Mr Zhu said that entries of deposits of $1,500 on 19 May 2025 and $2,070 on 21 May 2025 for "PRASAD MOHOD DEPOSIT ELECTRICAL W" were payments to him for electrical work which he had undertaken. 15. Mr Zhu said that an entry of a deposit of $1,700 on 10 June 2025 for "PC FASTWAY GROUP PTY ELECTRICIAN SERVICE" was a payment to him for electrical work which he had undertaken. He said that this was also the situation for a payment of $200 on

1. There are medical records in evidence which record Mr Zhu seeking treatment for his lower back prior to the work injury of 29 November 2024.
2. There is an entry made by Dr Cheung from Auburn Healthcare Centre on 1 September 2019 of: "lower back pain 4 years ago; recurring". An entry two weeks later refers to an MRI scan performed two years ago which showed mild disc bulging.
3. There is an entry made by Dr Xu from MyHealth Medical Eastwood on 26 February 2023 of: "chronic back pain".
4. There is an entry made by Dr Liang from MyHealth Medical Eastwood on 14 October 2024 of: "low back pain after lifting object", and also "no shooting pain" and "no sciatica".
5. There is a discharge summary from Westmead Hospital dated 17 October 2024 which records that Mr Zhu presents with a 10 day history of: "acute on chronic lower back pain" when lifting a pram. It is also recorded that Mr Zhu had only seen a physiotherapist and one occasion and had "largely self-managed at home".
6. The first consultation which Mr Zhu has following the injury on 29 November 2024 appears to be with Dr Liang on 9 December 2024. The entry for that consultation includes:

"flared up of low back pain after lifting a 100kg obj at work with 2 other people

1. Dr Liang records "shooting pain when sitting more than 10 min" on 8 January 2025.
2. Mr Zhu attended two neurosurgeons for treatment within a few months of the work injury.

Dr Wong writes in a report dated 16 January 2025 that Mr Zhu has no significant past medical history. He records that Mr Zhu had some back pain when lifting heavy objects at a work site in early December, but that Mr Zhu then noticed ongoing radicular pain radiating down to the leg a few days later. Dr Wong also records that Mr Zhu thought that his symptoms were improving. 3. Dr Wong writes in a report dated 20 March 2025 that his assessment is right L5 radiculopathy. He refers to various treatment options, but he also records that Mr Zhu has actually improved in regard to right buttock pain and pain radiating down the right leg. 4. Dr Wong writes in a further report dated 27 May 2025 that a new MRI shows significant improvement compared to a previous scan in February 2025 and that Mr Zhu now has relatively mild symptoms. 5. The second neurosurgeon, Dr Lukins, records in a report dated 10 February 2025 that

Mr Zhu experienced severe back pain on 29 November 2024 after lifting a heavy cabinet, with later radiation of pain to the right leg. He also writes that there is no significant past medical history reported by Mr Zhu. Dr Lukins diagnoses a large L4-5 disc herniation causing right L5 impingement. 6. Dr Lukins does not record any improvement in symptoms in a further report dated

12 March 2025 and recommends an endoscopic microdiscectomy. However, Mr Zhu has chosen not to proceed with that procedure to date. 7. Mr Zhu states that he changed his general practitioner to Dr Khoo because "Dr Liang is not a Workcover doctor". There are Certificates of Capacity in evidence from Dr Khoo dated

24 January 2025, 21 February 2025 and 13 March 2025 which certify that Mr Zhu has no current work capacity. However, Dr Khoo set out limits of no more than 5 kg lifting and pulling, avoiding bending, and sitting and standing as tolerated. 8. There is a questionnaire completed by Dr Khoo on 8 July 2025 at the request of the first respondent wherein Dr Khoo is asked if his physical injury was entirely caused by the work injury, and Dr Khoo responds:

"Yes. Although Mr Zongquan Zhu told me this is not the first episode of his low back pain but the pain this time was completely different from the previous episode. He never experienced that high level of pain with shooting pain, sharp pain and pins, needles down to his leg. This was the first time he felt muscle weakness in his leg and was unable to mobilise properly. Based on that information, previous episodes should be caused by non-specific low back pain, however, this time, with the diagnosis of the scan investigation, was confirmed as radiculopathy (nerve root compression)."

1. Dr Nair, orthopaedic surgeon, has provided reports at the request of the first respondent dated 9 May 2025, 29 May 2025 and 4 July 2025.
2. Dr Nair records in his report dated 9 May 2025 that Mr Zhu was carrying heavy objects with two other workers when he developed lower back pain. He records no relevant past medical history.
3. Dr Nair concludes that Mr Zhu has clinical and radiological evidence of lumbar degenerative disc disease, but that he can perform office duties with the restriction of avoiding bending and lifting greater than 5 kg.
4. Dr Nair in his next report dated 29 May 2025 continues to opine on an assumption that

Mr Zhu did not have any symptoms prior to the injury on 29 November 2024. He confirms his opinion that Mr Zhu sustained an acute injury on that day. 5. It is apparent from the third report dated 4 July 2025 that Dr Nair has now been appraised of Mr Zhu seeking treatment for lower back pain prior to the injury on 29 November 2024.

"I acknowledge that the clinical notes suggest a long history of back pain dating back several years, as well as a recent event in October 2024 prior to the subject injury. From the information you have highlighted, it is clear he had pre-existing symptomatic lumbar spine pathology.

However, given the described mechanism of the work injury where he was lifting a100kg object, and noting that he appeared to have returned to physical duties by the time of the subject injury, in my opinion the work incident of 29/11/24 caused an aggravation of his pre-existing lumbar degeneration, and I would consider it to be the main contributing factor to the aggravation."

1. A/Prof Papantoniou has provided a report at the request of Dr Zhu's lawyers dated

28 May 2025. 2. A/Prof Papantoniou records that Mr Zhu experienced the onset of lower back pain on

29 November 2024 after lifting some heavy items at the request of an owner-builder. He records that Mr Zhu rested over the following weekend and returned to work but the pain in his lower back intensified as the Christmas holidays approached. 3. A/Prof Papantoniou records that Mr Zhu had some minor intermittent low back soreness prior to 29 November 2024, but it did not require him to take time off work and he was able to work as an apprentice electrician without restrictions before 29 November 2024. 4. A/Prof Papantoniou diagnoses Mr Zhu as having a large L4/5 disc prolapse with a large inferiorly sequestered fragment causing bilateral L5 nerve root compression, more significant on the right, and associated severe mechanical lower back pain, and which is a direct result of the injury sustained on 29 November 2024. 5. A/Prof Papantoniou opines that Mr Zhu has no capacity for work in any capacity, including his role as an apprentice electrician or any form of light or modified duties. He opines that any attempt to return to work, even in a sedentary role, would likely result in an exacerbation of his symptoms.

A summary of the submissions made by the parties to this dispute

1. Mr Robison on behalf of ESP submits that the respondents have failed to identify any nexus between the injury sustained by Mr Zhu on 29 November 2024 and his claims of subsequent incapacity because there is no medical opinion which addresses the effect of previous problems which Mr Zhu had with his lower back. Although his client concedes that Mr Zhu did sustain injury on 29 November 2024, that concession is overwhelmed by other material, especially the attendance by Mr Zhu at Westmead Hospital on 17 October 2024, which makes causation between the work injury and any form of compensation insurmountable.
2. Mr Robison submits that the condition of Mr Zhu's lower back by 17 October 2024 must have been severe because he was no longer able to manage his condition at home (as recorded in the discharge summary) and this caused him to attend hospital. He submits that consistent with the direction given of a "fair climate" in Paric v John Holland Constructions Pty Ltd 2 NSWLR 505 (Paric), there is no medical opinion relied upon by the first respondent or

Mr Zhu which grapples with whether the incident of lifting the pram in October 2024 (as recorded in the discharge summary) caused incapacity or the need for medical treatment as opposed to the work injury. 3. Mr Robison submits that Mr Zhu is totally devoid of credibility. He refers to the failure to disclose his past problems with his lower back to his treating specialists and to Dr Nair. He refers to Mr Zhu's dishonesty in declaring that he was employed by Sam Electrical Services, and by then compounding that dishonesty by telling an officer at TAFE that he had not worked since the injury in November 2024 when in fact he had worked. Mr Robison submits that the entire factual premise as to whether or not Mr Zhu has worked subsequent to the injury, and on what basis, can only be resolved against him in the circumstances presented to the Commission. 4. Mr Robison submits that the period during which Mr Zhu is working and then tries to undo what he tells the teacher at TAFE starts from 6 February 2025. He submits that therefore the claim for reimbursement of weekly payments of compensation made by the first respondent should be disallowed as from 6 February 2025. 5. Mr Robison concedes that payments for incapacity and payment for medical expenses do not have to go together. However, he submits that the claim for medical expenses is compromised by the same issue regarding the claim for weekly payments, namely a lack of medical opinion regarding the effect of previous problems which Mr Zhu had with his lower back, in particular the increase in symptoms in October 2024. This means that the Commission cannot be satisfied that any of the medical expenses incurred by Mr Zhu after 29 November 2024 have been reasonably necessary and require reimbursement by ESP.

1. Mr Doak on behalf of the first respondent submits that the failure by Mr Zhu to report his previous complaints of back symptoms to his treating specialists and Dr Nair does not preclude the Commission from giving weight to those opinions. He submits that both treating neurosurgeons and Dr Nair opine that Mr Zhu sustained an injury in the form of a herniation of the L4/5 lumbar disc with impingement of the descending L5 nerve causing radicular symptoms.
2. Mr Doak submits that when the medical records prior to the injury of 29 November 2024 are compared to those records following the injury, it is unarguable that the symptoms in

Mr Zhu's lumbar spine have worsened, including the onset of radicular symptoms. He refers to the there being no reference to leg pain in the clinical notes in the entry from Dr Liang on 14 October 2025 or in the discharge summary from Westmead Hospital dated

17 October 2024, whereas Dr Wong and Dr Lukins both confirm radicular symptoms due to a herniated L4/5 disc found on radiology. Furthermore, there is no medical opinion provided by ESP to challenge those opinions, or the opinion of Dr Nair. 3. Mr Doak submits that while the failure by Mr Zhu to disclose his prior medical history and the false history which he gave to his TAFE supervisor does not reflect particularly well on

Mr Zhu, it does not follow that all of his evidence should be rejected. ESP does not dispute that Mr Zhu did sustain an injury to his lower back on 29 November 2024 and the medical records following that injury confirm an increase in lower back symptoms which then led to an incapacity for work and the need for medical treatment. 4. Mr Doak submits that the evidence regarding the bank deposits from "ELECO MAX PTY LTD ELECO MAX ALUMINIUM ORDER" shows a very limited work capacity which involved the placing of orders for materials for a friend. Otherwise, Mr Zhu was only doing occasional light electrical work. 5. Mr Doak submits that the correct approach to the issue of incapacity is to compare the earnings which Mr Zhu conceded in cross-examination were for light electrical or handyman work on a part time basis, informed by the evidence in cross-examination about the hours of work that Mr Zhu was able to perform. He submits that the submission made by ESP that all weekly payments after 6 February 2025 should be disallowed would require the Commission to be satisfied that Mr Zhu was capable of earning not less than his pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE), and such a case has not been made out by ESP. 6. Mr Doak submits that ESP has not provided any medical evidence to contend that the need for medical treatment was caused by Mr Zhu's pre-existing lower back symptoms or that the incurred medical expenses have not been reasonably incurred. ESP should be found to be liable to repay all of the medical expenses set out in the notice dated 10 June 2025.

1. Mr Hickey on behalf of Mr Zhu supports the submissions made by the first respondent. He refers to the findings and opinion of A/Prof Papantoniou as adding to the medical evidence which supports the argument that the incident on 29 November 2024 led to a significant increase in lower back symptoms and subsequent incapacity for work and the need for medical treatment.
2. Mr Hickey sets out details of his client's earnings from the documents before the Commission and the evidence given by Mr Zhu at the hearing and submits that the most Mr Zhu was able to earn in suitable employment in the period from 6 February 2025 to 28 May 2025 was $250 per week. The amount of repayment by ESP to the first respondent should be adjusted accordingly.
3. Mr Hickey refers to Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd [2015] NSWWCCPD 49 (Murphy) at [57]-[58] in support of his submission that it is sufficient if the injury sustained on 29 November 2024 "materially contributed" to the need for treatment for such expenses to be paid for by the first respondent. He submits that the medical expenses incurred by Mr Zhu have been reasonably necessary given the severity of the pathology which has been found on scanning subsequent to the injury.

Whether the expert opinions relied upon by the respondents have been provided in a "fair climate"

1. ESP relies upon the principles set out in Paric to argue that most, if not all, of the workers compensation benefits paid to or on behalf of Mr Zhu up until 28 May 2025 cannot be recovered by the first respondent because the medical opinions relied upon by the respondents have not considered the problems that Mr Zhu had with his lower back prior to the work injury on 29 November 2024 and have therefore not been provided in a "fair climate".
2. Samuels JA said (with Hutley and Preistley JJA agreeing) in Paric at [509G-510B]:

"It is a question of whether the hypothetical material put to the expert witnesses represents a fair climate for the opinions they expressed. I do not think there is any requirement that the matter put is precisely consonant with the material provided; and certainly it cannot be contended that there was no evidence upon which the opinions could be based.`

Discrepancies may be fatal; in some cases even slight discrepancies may be fatal; in other cases even broad departures are not likely to affect the force of the expert opinion. Moreover, it is for the tribunal of fact to assess this factual basis."

1. It is not apparent from the reports of Dr Wong nor Dr Lukins that either treating specialist was aware of problems which Mr Zhu had with his lower back prior to the work injury. Both doctors write that Mr Zhu did not have any significant past medical history.
2. Dr Nair also provides an initial opinion in May 2025 on an assumption that there was no relevant past medical history to consider, although he considers that Mr Zhu has clinical and radiological evidence of lumbar degenerative disc disease.
3. However, Dr Nair is subsequently made aware of a previous history of back pain and provides a logical explanation for the significant worsening of Mr Zhu's lower back symptoms after the work injury:

"...given the described mechanism of the work injury where he was lifting a100kg object, and noting that he appeared to have returned to physical duties by the time of the subject injury, in my opinion the work incident of 29/11/24 caused an aggravation of his pre-existing lumbar degeneration, and I would consider it to be the main contributing factor to the aggravation."

1. Unlike the other specialists I have just referred to, A/Prof Papantoniou does record that

Mr Zhu had some minor intermittent low back soreness prior to 29 November 2024, although he does not offer any further details as to what he understood this to be. He does record that this previous minor soreness did not cause Mr Zhu to take time off work, which is consistent with the available evidence and is not challenged by any evidence from any officer from ESP, despite Mr Zhu working for over a year with ESP prior to his work injury. 2. There is a difference of opinion between Dr Nair and A/Prof Papantoniou as to the cause of Mr Zhu's lower back symptoms following the work injury. A/Prof Papantoniou considers that the lifting undertaken by Mr Zhu on 29 November 2024 caused the L4/5 disc to prolapse, whereas the opinion of Dr Nair is that Mr Zhu aggravated a pre-existing lumbar degenerative disease. 3. Nonetheless, the opinions of both those experts strongly support a finding, which I accept, that Mr Zhu experienced a significant increase in lower back symptoms following the incident at work in November 2024, as well as symptoms in the right leg. This significant increase in symptoms led to an incapacity for work and need for extensive medical treatment, whereas Mr Zhu had taken no time off work for his back symptoms and had not been in need of regular treatment for lower back symptoms prior to the work injury. 4. Although less weight might be given to the opinion of Dr Khoo because he did not have the benefit of treating Mr Zhu before the work injury and therefore cannot compare Mr Zhu's back condition to both and after the incident on 29 November 2024, and because he is not a specialist, his opinion in the questionnaire he completed for the first respondent in July 2025 is consistent with the conclusion which I reached having regard to the opinions of Dr Nair and A/Prof Papantoniou. Dr Khoo acknowledges that Mr Zhu had previous episodes of lower back pain, but those episodes were non-specific, whereas Mr Zhu was now experiencing a high level of pain with shooting pain and pins and needles sensations down his leg. 5. Furthermore, even though neither Dr Wong nor Dr Lukins are aware of problems which

Mr Zhu had with his lower back prior to the work injury, and neither specialist specifically opines that the symptoms which Mr Zhu presented with were caused by the work injury, it is readily apparent that both specialists from their findings on examination and consideration of relevant scans accept that Mr Zhu was experiencing a significant increase in symptoms in the lower back and down the right leg subsequent to the incident in November 2024. 6. I also agree with a submission made by Mr Doak that the contemporaneous medical records prior the work injury when compared to those records and reports after the work injury reveal a significant change in symptoms experienced by Mr Zhu. 7. Dr Liang records "no shooting pain" and "no sciatica" on 14 October 2024. The discharge summary from Westmead Hospital does include "potential for radiculopathy", but the notes from the examination of Mr Zhu do not record any specific symptoms affecting the legs. This contrasts with a record of "shooting pain" made by Dr Liang on 8 January 2025, and records made by Dr Wong and Dr Lukins of Mr Zhu experiencing pain down his right leg. 8. It was noted in Paric that "in some cases even slight discrepancies may be fatal", but in other cases "even broad departures are not likely to affect the force of the expert opinion", and "it is for then tribunal of fact to assess this factual basis". 9. Having regard to the opinions expressed by Dr Nair and A/Prof Papantoniou as to the cause of Mr Zhu's symptoms after the incident on 29 November 2024, when both experts are made aware of Mr Zhu having some previous problems with his lower back, as well as the opinion of Dr Khoo, and the significant lower back symptoms recorded by both Dr Wong and

Dr Lukins following the incident in November 2024, which was significant enough for

Dr Lukins recommend surgery in March 2025, I am not convinced of the argument of ESP that the failure to properly disclose prior lower back symptoms and treatment by Mr Zhu makes causation between the work injury and any form of compensation insurmountable. 10. Instead, I accept that the findings and opinion from those experts I have just referred to provide sufficient support for a finding that Mr Zhu experienced a significant increase in lower back symptoms, as well as symptoms down the right leg, as a result of the injury sustained on 29 November 2024, which caused Mr Zhu to be incapacitated for work and require medical treatment. 11. Finally, that conclusion is only strengthened by there being no medical opinion provided by ESP which challenges the findings and opinions of those experts.

1. There are Certificates of Capacity in evidence from Dr Khoo dated 24 January 2025,

21 February 2025 and 13 March 2025 which certify that Mr Zhu has no current work capacity. However, Dr Khoo also sets out certain limitations on Mr Zhu's work capacity in those certificates including no more than 5 kg lifting and pulling, avoiding bending, and sitting and standing as tolerated. 2. Dr Khoo does not record details of any work which Mr Zhu was undertaking in the clinical notes which have been included in the ALAD filed by Mr Zhu for the period from

24 January 2025 to 31 March 2025, nor in the questionnaire completed in July 2025, although that this is outside of the period claimed by the first respondent for the reimbursement of workers compensation benefits. 3. Ms Chen, rehabilitation consultant physiotherapist, from ReCare Services Pty Ltd writes in reports dated 10 February 2025 and 8 April 2025 that Mr Zhu is not working and is unfit for work. 4. Dr Nair opines in May 2025 that Mr Zhu can perform office duties with the restriction of avoiding bending and lifting greater than 5 kg. He does not record details of any work undertaken by Mr Zhu subsequent to the work injury. 5. Although I have found in favour in the opinion expressed by A/Prof Papantoniou on this issue of the cause of Mr Zhu's back symptoms, I cannot extend that to his opinion that Mr Zhu had no capacity for work in any capacity, even in a sedentary role, because Mr Zhu concedes that he had been undertaking some work by the time he was examined by A/Prof Papantoniou at the end of May 2025. 6. The evidence which was given by Mr Zhu at the hearing was at times confusing and difficult to follow. Mr Zhu answered at various times that an electrical job which he did for his family business would take an hour or less than an hour, a couple of hours, and three to five hours. He said that he would undertake such a job every two to three weeks. 7. The few tax invoices from Zoe Wu Family Trust which are in evidence vary from $150 to $250. However, the deposits for electrical work recorded in the Business Transaction Account for Zongquan Zhu and Jing Wu as Trustees for Zoe Wu Family Trust include amounts of $572, $418 and $440, suggest a greater level of earning capacity compared to the tax invoices. It may be that those deposits included materials, but there is no evidence of this. 8. The relatively light nature of the basic electrical work undertaken by Mr Zhu is consistent with the restrictions set out in the Certificates of Capacity issued by Dr Khoo and the restrictions suggested by Dr Nair (even though Dr Nair only refers to office work). Given that Mr Zhu said on one occasion that a job could last five hours, and allowing $50 per hour for trade work (even though Mr Zhu is still an apprentice), this amounts to an earning capacity of $250 per week. 9. Doing my best from the evidence which has been available, including answers given by

Mr Zhu, I conclude that Mr Zhu had an ability to earn $250 per week in undertaking basic, light electrical work during the period which is the subject of the notice issued by the first respondent. 10. However, there is also the import work undertaken by Mr Zhu in March and April 2025. The two amounts recorded in the NAB statement are significant - $7,632.50 and $3,532.20 - but I accept from the answers given by Mr Zhu to Mr Doak that some of that money would be reimbursement to Mr Zhu for making the initial payment for importing the material. 11. Mr Zhu said that the work required for importing the material was through 'WeCheck', and the limited information which he provided suggests that the work involved was relatively basic. Nonetheless, the available evidence allows for a conclusion to be made that Mr Zhu has administrative, organisational and clerical skills which would allow for some capacity to earn if he were employed in an office. 12. Allowing for the opinions on capacity for work set out by Dr Nair and in the Certificates of Capacity issued by Dr Khoo (including sitting and standing as tolerated), it seems to me that Mr Zhu could work four hours per day for two days per week undertaking menial administrative and clerical work. The hourly rate for a Level 1 employee under the Clerks - Private Sector Award in the first half of 2025 was $24.87, which for eight hours per week is near enough to $200 per week. 13. I therefore find that Mr Zhu was able to earn $450 per week from 6 February 2025, which is the date indicated by Mr Robison for the variation of the amount claimed in the notice issued by the first respondent. The ability to earn $450 per week amounts to no more than one and a half days per week for a man who has sustained a significant injury to his lower back but nonetheless has conceded that he was undertaking light electrical work and basic clerical work during the period which is the subject of the notice issued by the first respondent. 14. However, there are then deposits of $1,500 on 19 May 2025 and $2,070 on 21 May 2025 for "PRASAD MOHOD DEPOSIT ELECTRICAL W" which Mr Zhu said were payments to him for electrical work which he had undertaken. Mr Zhu was not asked for any more details in regard to how these amounts were calculated, but these amounts are prima facie evidence of earnings in excess of PIAWE. 15. I find it reasonable to conclude that after 7 May 2025 Mr Zhu was able to earn in excess of PIAWE and ESP should not be required to reimburse the first respondent after this date. 16. Mr Zhu was paid a total of $2,238.56 in weekly benefits of compensation between

23 January 2025 and 5 February 2025, and this is to be reimbursed by ESP to the first respondent. 17. Mr Zhu was paid a total of $15,011 in weekly benefits of compensation between

6 February 2025 and 7 May 2025, but the amount of $5,850 is to be deducted from this amount to allow for Mr Zhu being able to earn $450 per week during this period (being 13 weeks). ESP is therefore required to reimburse the first respondent the amount of $9,161 for this period. 18. There is no further reimbursement to be made by ESP to the first respondent for weekly payments of compensation after 7 May 2025 in respect of the notice dated 10 June 2025 which is the subject of these proceedings. 19. The amount of reimbursement to be made by ESP to the first respondent in regard to weekly payments of compensation is therefore $11,399.56.

1. Mr Hickey on behalf of Mr Zhu referred to the decision of Murphy in his submissions in regard to the issue of the payment of medical expenses in the claim pursued by Mr Zhu. DP Roche said in Murphy at [57]-[58]:

"...a condition can have multiple causes (Migge v Wormald Bros Industries Ltd (1973) 47 ALJR 236; Pyrmont Publishing Co Pty Ltd v Peters (1972) 46 WCR 27; Cluff v Dorahy Bros (Wholesale) Pty Ltd (1979) 53 WCR 167; ACQ Pty Ltd v Cook [2009] HCA 28 at [25] and [27]; [2009] HCA 28; 237 CLR 656). The work injury does not have to be the only, or even a substantial, cause of the need for the relevant treatment before the cost of that treatment is recoverable under s 60 of the 1987 Act.

Ms Murphy only has to establish, applying the common sense test of causation (Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452; 10 NSWCCR 796), that the treatment is reasonably necessary 'as a result of' the injury' (see Taxis Combined Services (Victoria) Pty Ltd v Schokman [2014] NSWWCCPD 18 at [40]-[55]). That is, she has to establish that the injury materially contributed to the need for the surgery (see the discussion on the test of causation in Sutherland Shire Council v Baltica General Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 12 NSWCCR 716)."

1. I have already provided my reasons for finding that the incident on 29 November 2024 caused a significant increase in symptoms in Mr Zhu's lower back which caused him to be incapacitated for work and have a need for medical treatment. In my view and consistent with Murphy, the available evidence supports a finding that the work injury materially contributed to the need which Mr Zhu then had for medical treatment.
2. Furthermore, ESP has not provided any expert opinion to challenge any of the medical treatment provided to Mr Zhu or that any services rendered have been excessive.
3. The list of payments for medical expenses sets out payment for scans, physiotherapy, chiropractic services, consultations with doctors, workplace rehabilitation services and travel treatment. These are standard expenses for treatment for a lower back condition and there is no reason why those expenses should not be regarded as reasonably necessary as a result of the injury sustained by Mr Zhu in the absence of expert opinion which seeks to challenge this.
4. The amount of reimbursement to be made by ESP to the first respondent in regard to medical expenses is therefore the full amount contained in the notice dated 10 June 2025 of $16,070.62.

1. ESP refers to two specific issues when contending that Mr Zhu is "totally devoid of credibility".
2. Firstly, there is the failure by Mr Zhu to disclose past problems which he had with his lower back to his treating specialists and to Dr Nair. This has been addressed in considering the "fair climate" argument pursued by ESP. I have given my reasons as to why the medical evidence favours a finding that Mr Zhu sustained a significant increase of symptoms in his lower back and then his right leg, notwithstanding that Mr Zhu appears not to have been candid with his treating doctors and Dr Nair.
3. In any event, Mr Zhu did provide a disclosure of past problems to A/Prof Papantoniou and A/Prof Papantoniou provided a cogent explanation for the cause of Mr Zhu's symptoms when armed with that knowledge. Dr Nair maintained his opinion on the causal connection between the work injury and Mr Zhu's lower back symptoms once he had been made aware of a past history of lower back pain.
4. Secondly, there is the dishonest conduct engaged in by Mr Zhu to maintain his work details on Skillstracker. I agree with the observation made by Mr Doak that this does not reflect particularly well on Mr Zhu, but the evidence regarding this does not really impinge on the determination which I have undertaken in regard to the extent of Mr Zhu's work capacity as a result of the work injury. That determination is based upon the medical opinions regarding capacity, the financial documents regarding work that Mr Zhu has undertaken post-injury,

Mr Zhu's statement dated 6 November 2025, and his evidence at the hearing. 5. Perhaps the issue of credibility could have been extended to the failure by Mr Zhu to produce the financial records from the National Australia Bank and his failure to inform various health professionals that he was undertaking some work. 6. Mr Zhu sought to explain the work he did for T and Z Family Trust in his statement dated

6 November 2025 once he had produced bank statements from the Commonwealth Bank, but he was not able to do so in regard the bank statements from the National Australia Bank, which only became available to ESP during the hearing. 7. Ms Chen had the important role of assisting Mr Zhu in returning to the workforce, which was being paid for by the first respondent, but appears from her reports to be unaware that

Mr Zhu was undertaking some work. 8. However, the credibility of Mr Zhu in regard to these particular matters was not pursued by ESP. 9. I therefore do not consider that the entire factual premise as to whether Mr Zhu worked, and on what basis, can only be resolved against Mr Zhu as asserted by ESP in its submissions in reply.

1. ESP is to reimburse the first respondent the amount of $11,399.56 for weekly payments of compensation paid to Mr Zhu and the amount of $16,070.62 for medical expenses. That comes to total of $27,470.18.