Field v Victorian WorkCover Authority [2026] VCC 21

1. Ms Field relies upon three affidavits, sworn 19 October 2023, 20 November 2024 and 23 June 2025, and the evidence of two of her sons, Adam and Jarryd Harahap, who both swore affidavits on 27 June 2025.

1. The plaintiff bears the onus of demonstrating she suffers from an ongoing compensable injury, her impairment is permanent, and that the consequences are "serious".
2. She must establish the consequences to her, with respect to pain and suffering, when judged by comparison with other cases in the range of possible impairments or losses of a body function, are fairly described as being at least "very considerable" and certainly more than "significant or marked",[1] in accordance with the narrative test set out in s325(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act.
3. In accordance with Petkovski v Galletti,[2] I must make findings as to the nature and extent of Ms Field's low back condition before the incident in March 2020, and any aggravation to that condition.
4. To satisfy the requisite threshold in relation to pecuniary loss, I must also be satisfied that Ms Field has suffered a permanent loss of earning capacity of 40 per cent or more, as set out in ss325(2)(e), (f) and (g) of the Act.
5. The measure of the claimed loss of earning capacity requires a comparison of two matters:

(a) the gross income the plaintiff is earning or is capable of earning in suitable employment at the date of the hearing ("after injury" earnings); and

(b) the gross income that the plaintiff was earning or was capable of earning "during that part of the period within three years before and three years after the injury as most fairly reflects the worker's earning capacity had the injury not occurred" ("without injury" earnings).[3]

1. Any such comparison should accord with the observations of Justice J Forrest in Acir v Frosster Pty Ltd,[4] that s134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, the analogue provision to s325, is:

"... a gateway provision which either precludes or permits a worker to bring a claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. It is a part of the serious injury process, not that of assessment of damages. It does not involve any determination (interim or final) of actual loss of earning capacity sustained by the worker."

2. In serious injury applications, the credit of the applicant is of great importance.[5]
3. Ms Field remains in receipt of medical and like expenses paid for by the WorkCover insurer. My approach, conventional in applications of this type,[6] is to regard this admission by conduct as to the existence of a persisting compensable injury as a factor to be considered. I will determine the application having regard to all of the evidence.

1. By way of overview, Ms Field's claim falls for consideration in the context of her not having a significant work history in the years preceding the incident. It is not in dispute that she had been unemployed for a number of years prior to March 2020, including by reason of her low back condition.
2. On one view, the evidence supports a finding that Ms Field had little or no work capacity at the time of the incident in March 2020. Around the time of her injury, she was claiming Centrelink benefits on the basis of medical certificates prepared by her treating general practitioner for her conditions of advanced degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, resulting in chronic lower back pain and restricted mobility, together with depression and anxiety.[7] Ms Field conceded in cross-examination that her pre-existing back condition was significant, and that she had to be "very careful" in all her activities in order not to aggravate this condition. There were regular flare-ups of pain and symptoms before the incident which required her to rest for one or two days.
3. Ms Field appeared to be overly focussed on her injury and its connection with her employment. This was not deliberate, but more likely a product of her longstanding and severe degenerative disease in her spine and hips. As such, I have reservations as to the reliability of some of her evidence. There is very little objective evidence as to the extent of her pre-injury capacity. Accordingly, the clinical notes recording Ms Field's attendances on her general practitioner prior to her injury in 2020, and the medico-legal expressions of opinion, assume particular importance in terms of the Court's task of assessing the nature and extent of any aggravation to her underlying condition sustained in the incident.
4. Ms Field's evidence in terms of her pre-existing low back condition in her first affidavit is as follows:

"Prior to starting work for Royal Freemasons, I suffered aches and pains in various parts of my body from time to time, including my low back. However, the pain did not stop me working or pursuing my various hobbies and interests ... ."[8]

5. This evidence is misleading at best, having regard to her concessions in cross-examination and a certificate as to her incapacity for employment provided by her general practitioner on 25 January 2019.
6. In her second affidavit, Ms Field deposes to her pain being aggravated by activity, and that she has:

"... adjusted the way I do everything so as to accommodate my back pain and to avoid aggravating it. As a result, my life is limited."[9]

7. A reader of this affidavit would have been left with the impression that it was the workplace incident in March 2020 which had resulted in pain which was aggravated by activity, and the need to adjust the way she did everything so as to accommodate her back pain.
8. Her oral evidence, under cross-examination, and her medical history in the tendered material, however, disclose the true picture. Prior to the incident, she suffered from episodic flare-ups of a longstanding, chronic condition of low back pain, which was aggravated by activity, resulting in the need for, at least, one or two days in bed to recover, and which required prescription pain medication three days a week. She further conceded that prior to her injury, she had adjusted the way she did everything so as to accommodate her back pain.[10]
9. Other issues in terms of her credit and reliability arise in her second affidavit. At paragraph 19, she relies upon the consequence of being unable to continue attending markets to sell various craft items. Ms Field failed to disclose, however, she had in fact ceased attending craft markets in around 2015, at least on a regular basis, some five years before the incident.
10. Further, paragraph 20 implies that the reason she had not worked for a number of years was because she lived on the Mornington Peninsula, did not know many people, and there was not a lot of work available, except in the hospitality industry.
11. In fact, she requested her general practitioner, Dr Lydia Arnold, in 2019 to certify that she was unfit for all forms of employment on the basis of her chronic, low back pain as a consequence of longstanding osteoarthritis, and her mental health.
12. Ms Field did disclose previous radiological investigations in 2007 and 2015, and back pain requiring conservative treatment throughout that period including osteopathy in 2016, chiropractic treatment in 2017 and further radiology, physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment in 2018. She goes on to state:

"At the time of my accident, my back pain had settled."[11]

13. I reject that evidence, given the attendances upon her general practitioner throughout 2019 and 2020 referred to below at paragraph 50, and in particular the medical certificate in late January 2019 certifying her as unfit for all forms of employment as a consequence of her low back condition.
14. Her third affidavit, sworn 23 June 2025, does not correct any of the misleading aspects of her previous affidavits.
15. It is difficult to reconcile Ms Field's evidence about being "very careful"[12] in her day-to-day activities before 21 March 2020, and her florid oral evidence and demonstration in the witness box as to her attempt to lift a resident whilst down on her haunches at the time of the incident.
16. There is also some disconformity between the objective record of a history of intermittent low back pain since the incident, and her strident oral evidence of constant and severe pain from March 2020 requiring strong prescription pain medication. There is no evidence of prescription of pain medication for her low back until January 2021, ten months after the incident.
17. Ms Field was argumentative at times during the course of cross-examination, which further served to reinforce the general proposition that the credit of the plaintiff is a central consideration in applications of this type.
18. While I do not reject all of her evidence, I am cautious about its reliability. Unless supported by objective evidence, and the evidence as a whole, I find I am unable to give significant weight to Ms Field's evidence on the critical issues of the nature and extent of her pre-existing low back condition, and as to her current level of impairment as a result of any ongoing compensable injury.

1. Ms Field was born in 1958 and is currently aged sixty-seven years. She was sixty-one at the date of the incident. She is single with two adult children from a previous marriage that ended in 1995.
2. She grew up in Warrandyte, and completed Year 12 in 1975. She also completed a Food Handlers Certificate, Responsible Service of Alcohol Certificate and First Aid Certificate (now expired).
3. From 1980 to 1986, she worked as a business manager of a retail shop, which she owned jointly with her mother, designing clothing and jewellery. She then worked as a receptionist at a marketing company for a few years and later, in front of house at Beasley's Nursery & Tea House for eight years.[13] Ms Field also worked at Fernwood Health Clubs in sales, marketing and as a receptionist for approximately six years. In or about 2012, Ms Field was employed as an administrative assistant at Clota Cottage Neighbourhood House, working 30 hours per week.[14]
4. In approximately 2015, Ms Field ceased her employment with Clota Cottage due to mental health issues.[15]
5. Ms Field regularly attended Melbourne craft markets for twenty years, at which she made and sold her homemade craft products. After she relocated to Red Hill 2015, Ms Field only attended local craft markets on the Mornington Peninsula on an occasional and infrequent basis.[16]
6. Ms Field was unemployed from approximately 2015 to 20 March 2020.
7. In September of 2019, she moved to Eltham to be closer to her family.[17]
8. On 20 March 2020, Ms Field commenced employment with Royal Freemasons as a receptionist/community liaison officer on a part-time basis, working two shifts per week.

1. Prior to the incident in March 2020, the plaintiff suffered from a longstanding and chronic low back pain in the context of severe osteoarthritis. She was reliant upon prescription pain medication, and it was a significant factor in her unemployment in the years prior to her commencing at Freemasons Hospital on 20 March 2020.
2. Upon x-ray investigation on 5 May 2007,[18] there was slight disc space narrowing present at several levels of her lumbar spine with facet arthropathy but no spondylolysis. There were sclerotic changes involving the iliac crests bilaterally.
3. By 20 July 2015, when Ms Field underwent a CT scan of her lumbosacral spine, the clinical notes record she had suffered from chronic low back osteoarthritis with facet arthropathy in the lumbar spine since 2007. She was also experiencing chronic bilateral hip pain in the context of osteoarthritis.
4. The report of the 2015 CT scan disclosed:

"... Multi-level degenerative change ... > > Marked degenerative change of bilateral L2/3, L3/4 and L4/5 facet joints with moderate degenerative change of bilateral L5/S1 facet joints. > > Moderate canal encroachment at L3/4 level. > > Mild canal encroachment at L2/3, L4/5 and L5/S1 levels. > > Mild narrowing of the left L2, bilateral L3, bilateral L4 and left L5 exit foramina. No evidence of impingement to the exiting nerve roots. > > Symmetrical mild degenerative change of the bilateral sacro-iliac joints."[19]

5. Upon a CT scan of the lumbar spine on 17 November 2017, Ms Field was found to have mild lumbar scoliosis convex to the left, with a minimal 1.5 millimetre forward slip of L3 on L4, secondary to facet arthropathy posteriorly, with advanced degenerative narrowing of the lumbosacral discs. There was also moderate severity bilateral medial and lower lumbar facet arthrosis from L2-3 through to L5‑S1 at each side.[20]
6. Her low back condition affected her sleep, and she was very careful in all of her day-to-day activities, which were limited by reason of her back and hip problems. She did not lift any heavy weights and was careful to avoid aggravating her back condition.
7. The clinical notes of Ms Field's consultations with her general practitioners prior to the incident record as follows:

(a) 18 September 2015 - multiple psychosomatic complaints; back pain and degeneration. Dr Shinwari completed a Centrelink verification of medical condition at the time, apparently in relation to back pain;

(b) 13 April 2016 - chronic back pain, including difficulty putting her shoes on. Ms Field accepted that she was obtaining Centrelink certificates at the time because of depression, anxiety and because of her back;[21]

(c) 22 June 2016 - Ms Field was still having issues with pain and stiffness in her low back. "Is having a major impact in her daily living. [T]urning her head whilst driving ... stiffness. [D]ifficulty shopping. ... generally found physiotherapy not as much help." Ms Field was referred to a chiropractor and osteopath for her low back condition. She had been taking Pristiq for some time;

(d) 19 January 2017 - "bulging disc in back worse. Has degenerative changes in spine." A prescription for Voltaren tablets was provided for her osteoarthritis;

(e) 7 December 2017 - "back and neck pain; Centrelink forms ... Back problems." Ms Field had received treatment over some years from an osteopath, and latterly, a chiropractor, with a recommendation for hydrotherapy:

"... she may even need back surgery.

[H]as advanced multilevel degenerative changes in lumbar spine (and also in the Cx spine).

Wants to try for disability benefits.

... Centrelink Medical Certificate was produced."[22]

(f) 12 January 2018 - Ms Field "has been told at Centrelink she should go on [a] Disability Pension" for her back and neck;

(g) 25 January 2019 - Ms Field attended on Dr Arnold in relation to her various medical conditions. On the same day, Dr Arnold issued a Centrelink certificate for chronic low back pain, with restricted mobility and pain, and a second condition of anxiety and depression.[23]

In the course of her cross-examination, Ms Field accepted that as at January 2019, she had a long history of back pain that was restricting her mobility and her ability to work, such that her general practitioner certified her as having no work capacity; and further, that this back pain had been going on for years;[24]

(h) in June and July 2019, Ms Field consulted different practitioners in relation to her chronic back and hip pain, and received chiropractic treatment for her back during this period;

(i) 2 September 2019 - Ms Field was prescribed Voltaren tablets for her back and hip pain.

Shortly afterwards, she moved to Melbourne and transferred her treatment to the doctors at the Nillumbik Medical Centre where started seeing Dr Jacqueline Laing.

(j) December 2019 - Ms Field consulted Dr Laing in relation to her depression, and her prescription of Pristiq medication was renewed;

(k) 13 January 2020 - Ms Field reported a history of low back disc problems in the context of her generalised osteoarthritis; and

(l) 11 March 2020 - Dr Laing referred the plaintiff for a plain x-ray of her hips in the context of increasing pain and reduced range of motion. Subsequently the x-ray confirmed bilateral hip osteoarthritis, severe on the right and moderate to severe on the left.[25]

Ms Field's low back and hip condition as at March 2020

(a) Ms Field suffered from chronic low back osteoarthritis with facet arthropathy in the lumbar spine since 2007; and chronic bilateral hip pain in the context of osteoarthritis (requiring bilateral hip replacements the year after the incident);

(b) her low back condition affected her sleep, and she was very careful in all of her day-to-day activities, which were limited by reason of her back and hip problems. She did not lift any heavy weights and was careful to avoid aggravating her back condition;

(c) there were regular flare-ups of low back pain and symptoms which required her to rest for one or two days;

(d) she had difficulty putting her shoes on;

(e) she was obtaining Centrelink certificates for her low back condition;

(f) her low back was having a major impact on her activities of daily living.

(g) she took prescription and over-the-counter medication to control her low back pain;

(h) she was having regular conservative treatment, including physiotherapy from a chiropractor and osteopath, and had not worked for a number of years due to her low back issues; and

(i) her low back condition was such that her general practitioner certified her as having no work capacity in 2019.

1. The incident on 21 March 2020 occurred overnight. Following an elderly resident calling for assistance, Ms Field attempted to assist the resident up off the ground.
2. On her account:

(a) once her shift ended, she went home and went to bed, with low back pain;

(b) after two weeks or so at home, she returned to work; and

(c) she continued to experience pain in her low back and around her hips, and took pain medication.

1. Although it is not in dispute an incident occurred involving exacerbation of her low back condition on 21 March 2020, there is no evidence of any complaint to her doctors of low back pain as a result of her employment until October 2020, and, accordingly, its significance is properly in issue.
2. Following the incident, Ms Field completed and signed an Incident Report form before she left work. She states in that report that, "I tried to pick ... [the resident] up and couldn't. So I asked her neighbour ... [resident] to help me. He picked her up under the arms and I held her hands and helped her up." In relation to the fall incident, she reported there was "no injury".[26]
3. The following day, Monday, 23 March 2020, Ms Field sent a text message to her supervisor in response to an enquiry about her availability for shifts later that week. The text states, "I've been in bed since I got home yesterday with a sore back, sore throat, ears, headache and got a cold sore yesterday".[27]
4. A medical certificate dated 24 March 2020 was provided by Dr Laing on the basis of the COVID-19 symptoms. There is no mention of any low back pain in the clinical attendance note of that date.[28] Nor is there any record of Ms Field informing her general practitioner as to the incident. Ms Field did not, in completing the shift notes on 22 March 2020, notify her employer of any injury to her low back.[29]
5. When Ms Field supplied a medical certificate to her employer on 26 March 2020, again, she did not mention any low back pain or injury.[30]
6. Although Ms Field states that she had two weeks off work as a result of her back condition, there is no objective evidence to support this. The medical certificate issued by Dr Laing on 26 March 2020 for the period 28 March 2020 until 5 April 2020 was in relation to a sore throat, headache and fatigue in the context of COVID-like symptoms, and prescription of the Famvir vaccine.
7. There are physiotherapy records from April 2020, following a treatment referral for osteoarthritic hips. Ms Field's history to Scott Dadswell, physiotherapist, on 20 April 2020 refers to nonspecific low back pain, which "started later on once shift was over" after she "went to lift someone up at a retirement village" approximately one month ago. She "[d]id not feel much of a pop or anything during the lift". The only tenderness upon examination was "at outside of hip".[31] By 27 April 2020, her back pain had settled, and the physiotherapy treatment provided appears to have been in relation to her hips, consistent with appointments around this time with her hip surgeon, Associate Professor Di Bella, who advised Ms Field of the need for total hip replacements. Any further reference to low back pain in Mr Dadswell's records is incidental, and entirely consistent with the evidence concerning Ms Field's pre-existing low back condition, which was regularly aggravated upon activity. No report from Mr Dadswell was tendered.
8. Ms Field consulted Dr Laing again on 6 May 2020 in relation to her severe bilateral hip osteoarthritis. She attended on her usual clinic on many other occasions without mentioning any low back pain, and there is no record of prescription of any medication in relation to it. The only record is for a prescription in August 2020 for Naprosyn in relation to hip pain, as required. There is no objective evidence of prescription of any strong pain medication for her low back in the months after the incident.
9. Ms Field worked throughout 2020, completing her two shifts per week without complaint until she ceased in October 2020.
10. She consulted an osteopath, Tom Katsapis, on 7 October 2020, providing a history of some low back pain in the incident at work. Her recorded complaints at the time related to "groin pain hips worse. waking at night with pain"; and the diagnosis was "[osteoarthritis] very severe r[ight] hip after injury".[32]
11. An x-ray of the lumbar spine on 7 October 2020 showed marked facet joint arthropathy of the lower lumbar spine with Grade 1 anterolisthesis of L3 on L4 and of L4 on L5, with mild scoliosis.[33]
12. Ms Field completed a WorkCover Claim Form on 9 October 2020, which was accepted on 12 November 2020.
13. The first complaint of incident-related pain to her general practitioner is in Dr Laing's note dated 12 October 2020, which records a history of "'Lurching pain across lower back' - referred to hips R>L", and "has had increasing pain & reduced ROM hips for a long time ... degree of pain has increased & ROM worsened since incident at work." Dr Laing diagnosed "aggravation or exacerbation of her degenerative changes".[34]
14. The next day, Ms Field provided a history to her general practitioner, Dr Mark Rogers, of injuring her back when lifting a resident, when she "felt a crack in her back" and that she has been "[complaining of low back pain] and hip pain since then". Dr Rogers recorded a known history of severe osteoarthritis in the hips and lumbar spine, and that Ms Field was awaiting hip replacement. Upon examination, Dr Rogers recorded tenderness of the lumbar spine, with shooting pain down to the sole of her right foot; and left leg pain down the side of her thigh to knee. Dr Rogers' impression was of a probable disc injury, and he referred her for an MRI scan of the lumbar spine and physiotherapy for back pain and advanced osteoarthritis of both hips.
15. An MRI scan on 15 October 2020 confirmed the findings on x-ray, and disc and facet joint degeneration at L3-4 and L4-5 with approximately a 4-millimetre anterior slip at each level. The facet joint arthropathy was most severe bilaterally at L3-4 and L4‑5, and was moderate at all other levels bilaterally.
16. The general practitioners' notes also record physiotherapy has a good effect on the back, although it was still sore and the sessions flared the pain. Ms Field had physiotherapy prior to the incident, but no records or reports were tendered.
17. Ms Field was prescribed medication (Naprosyn) for back and hip pain on 7 January 2021. There is no mention of low back pain in any of a number of consultations with Associate Professor Di Bella from May 2020, the orthopaedic surgeon who performed bilateral hip replacement surgery in April and December 2021. I infer this medication was predominantly for Ms Field's non-compensable hip condition.
18. Dr Mark Rogers supports the WorkCover claim, but his opinion in relation to causation was expressed on the basis that, "Ms Field has reported to me during our consultations that prior to the workplace incident, she did not experience a significant degree of either hip or back pain ...". This is plainly incorrect, and, accordingly, I reject his opinion.
19. Ms Field asserts she did not make a WorkCover claim initially as she had been told by her manager she was not allowed to because her low back condition had not been disclosed in her "pre-existing injury" declaration form completed before she commenced employment. Her evidence in this regard is not corroborated by the declaration, which lists her pre-existing condition of osteoarthritis. I otherwise make no finding in relation to this allegation, and nor do I give it any weight.
20. It appears that both before[35] and after the incident, Ms Field has had treatment involving taking over-the-counter Panadol Osteo and prescription Voltaren,[36] intermittent physiotherapy, massage, osteopathy and chiropractic in nature, and some hydrotherapy.
21. Ms Field attended for pain management at the Donvale Rehabilitation Hospital for her low back and hip pain between late 2022 and May 2023.
22. Ms Field's general practitioner referred her to neurosurgeon, Dr Ales Aliashkevich, in June 2025. Based on a history of "severe lower back and bilateral leg pain after a workplace incident on 21/3/2020" (my emphasis) and only slight tenderness at the lumbosacral junction upon examination, Dr Aliashkevich diagnosed chronic lower back pain. His opinion in relation to causation was somewhat equivocal:

"Assessing the causation of your client's complex chronic pain and other symptoms presented significant challenges. After evaluating ... factors: > > ... [history, clinical examination, radiological imaging from 2022 and the GP referral] > > it would be plausible to conclude, on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the incident on 21/03/2020 could have been a contributing factor to the aggravation of the pre-existing degenerative spinal condition."[37]

1. As with other opinions, it is not informed by the evidence in this application as to the state of Ms Field's low back condition prior to the incident in March 2020, and so significantly compromised.

1. Ms Field relies on the opinions of consultant neurosurgeon, Professor Richard Bittar.
2. Professor Bittar, against a history of "lower back pain from time to time", which "did not have a significant detrimental impact on her social, domestic, recreational or workplace activities and did not require any significant ongoing treatment", diagnosed aggravation of lumbar spondylosis or work-related lumbar spondylosis.
3. In Professor Bittar's opinion, the injury "continues to be a significant contributing factor to her present symptoms, restrictions and impairment" without further explanation.
4. In a supplementary report dated 25 November 2024, Professor Bittar confirms his previous opinion, having considered a suite of further materials including all of the investigations, radiological investigations, historical radiological investigations and notes of her general practitioner prior to the incident, and stated that there was no reason to alter his previous opinions. He provides no reasoning whatsoever.
5. In a further supplementary report dated 15 July 2025, Professor Bittar takes a history, against the evidence referred to above, of Ms Field regularly attending craft markets most weekends for twenty years prior to her injury, which has been only limited since the injury. He also relies on an increase in medication use; and her current treatment and medication regime. Again, without any further reasoning, he states his opinion has not altered.[38]
6. As with Dr Rogers, I reject this opinion as to causation, which is based on incorrect premises.
7. In terms of current work capacity, in Professor Bittar's opinion, Ms Field could work two to three hours per day, three to four days per week, in a suitable role, as long as she was able to change postures frequently and avoid any bending, twisting or lifting.[39]
8. This results in a residual capacity in suitable employment for up to 12 hours per week, which, in any suitable role identified by the VWA, would exceed 60 per cent of Ms Field's "without injury" earnings.[40]
9. The plaintiff also relies upon a report from specialist occupational physician, Dr Dominic Yong, dated 2 September 2024.
10. I was a little unclear whether Dr Yong was provided with historical radiology. It is tolerably clear that Ms Field minimised her previous back condition to Dr Yong, stating she had no previous back injuries. He "was told that she did have arthritis in her back", for which she had an x‑ray, saw an osteopath and was doing some exercise.
11. This history significantly understates the nature and extent of her pre-existing low back condition.
12. On the basis of this flawed history, Dr Yong stated that Ms Field had suffered a work-related "discal injury to her low back with persisting lumbar dysfunction and radicular symptoms".[41] When provided with further materials, including historical radiology and clinical records, Dr Yong said the records did not show "any alternative cause or precipitant for the back injury in 2020", and that his opinion was unchanged.[42] Dr Yong, unfortunately, did not have the benefit of evidence in this case as to the significant reduction in her functional capacity prior to the incident.
13. Dr Yong also relied upon the onset of lower back symptoms occurring in March 2020, which is not supported by the evidence in this case. He also does not address the question of the progression of the underlying and severe degenerative condition of osteoarthritis in the lumbar spine as a cause of the plaintiff's current condition.
14. I accord limited weight to this opinion for those reasons; and also prefer in general terms an opinion as to causation of an orthopaedic surgeon provided with a complete history, over that of an occupational physician.
15. The VWA relied upon reports of orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Michael Dooley, dated 20 March 2024, 30 October 2024 and 12 June 2025.
16. Mr Dooley reported that the work-related episode of March 2020 resulted in a soft tissue injury to the lumbar spine that involved some aggravation of longstanding established and advanced, naturally-occurring and age-related degenerative disc change involving the lumbar spine, which was symptomatic.
17. In Mr Dooley's opinion, Ms Field's ongoing symptoms relate to this aggravation in part; however, the majority of symptoms relate to the natural evolution of the underlying degenerative condition.[43]
18. Mr Dooley believes Ms Field would have a physical capacity to carry out full-time work, although a return would need to be on a graduated basis, as she will need to be able to get up and move around on a regular basis.[44] I reject his opinion in relation to work capacity as against the weight of evidence of a more suitably qualified practitioner, such as an occupational physician.[45]
19. In a vocational assessment report dated 14 June 2024, occupational therapist, Ms Felicity Barras of Nabenet Integrated Workplace Health Services, identified an extensive employment history disclosing transferable skills as a receptionist, administrative assistant, sales consultant, front of house, and as a business manager in a retail context, having completed Year 12 and some certificates obtained from time to time to complement her employment. She also has basic computer skills, although she has limited formal qualifications. Her age might also make her less competitive in the open labour market. Ms Field was sixty-one years of age as at the date of injury. Ms Barras identified roles as virtual receptionist, administrative assistant, customer service representative, hire controller and sales support officer.
20. Commenting on these options, in Dr Yong's opinion, Ms Field has a current work capacity of reduced weekly hours, such as two by three-hour shifts per week, which may be adjusted if there is further improvement in her back condition, and a re-assessment to determine whether there is capacity to increase those working hours further.[46] Dr Yong notes that positions such as virtual receptionist could include recommended restrictions with flexibility to rotate postures regularly, and would be considered suitable to perform on a permanent, reliable and consistent basis and without the risk of re-injury. Any such role not involving any manual handling, including customer service representative, that does not involve frequent standing would be suitable.
21. Professor Gavin Davis, neurosurgeon, also examined the plaintiff at the request of the VWA's solicitors. Consistent with her evidence in court, Ms Field stated to Professor Davis that the difference between her history of chronic low back pain prior to the injury in March 2020 involved the pain developing from intermittent, whereas currently it is constant. Professor Davis' examination of the plaintiff was not consistent with a significant spinal injury, with markedly positive Waddell's signs (being a non-organic or psychological component to low back pain).
22. Professor Davis comprehensively analysed all of the material and diagnosed chronic constitutional spondylosis of the lumbar spine without radiculopathy, and a chronic pain condition. In Professor Davis' opinion, the multiple imaging studies performed prior to March 2020 confirmed the multi-level lumbar spondylosis, similar to current imaging findings. The pre-March 2020 longstanding scoliosis, disc degeneration, facet joint arthropathy and associated stenosis throughout the lumbar spine were significant because they contributed to Ms Field's longstanding chronic low back pain and indicated to him that her current condition of the lumbar spine is constitutional in nature and not caused by any particular event in March 2020.
23. Professor Davis notes the first report of the incident was on 20 April 2020 in a history to her physiotherapist, which had been scheduled as part of treatment for the pre-existing hip condition, prior to the date of injury. In his opinion, Ms Field may have had a temporary exacerbation of the pre-existing constitutional lumbar spondylosis subsequent to the alleged injury of 21 March 2020; however, the temporary exacerbation would have resolved over a matter of weeks, and does not continue to contribute to the patient's condition.
24. Professor Davis did not consider the incident on 21 March 2020 still materially contributes to Ms Field's current condition. He considered the effects of the work-related aggravation have now ceased. Further, that in the absence of the incident or any incident on 21 March 2020, her condition of chronic constitutional lumbar spondylosis without radiculopathy would have occurred, and progressed with age.
25. I accept Professor Davis' opinion as the only reasoned opinion based upon an accurate history and with all relevant materials.
26. In addition to his opinions as to her injury, Professor Davis considered she still had the capacity to perform any of the employment options provided by Nabenet.
27. Occupational physician Dr Mary Wyatt also provided two reports relied upon by the VWA, dated 18 June 2024 and 18 May 2025. Her diagnosis was of chronic low back pain, against a long history of chronic low back pain, including back pain that prevented Ms Field from working between 2015 and 2019.
28. In Dr Wyatt's opinion:

"An episode such as ... [on 21 March 2020] does not cause gradual worsening of a back problem over many months, an acute episode such as that would be expected to cause an exacerbation or aggravation, with the pain abating rather than worsening.

Accepting there was an episode, this presents to have been a temporary exacerbation rather than a long-term aggravation of a pre-existing problem. On all of the available information, it is expected any exacerbation from that incident would have settled within a matter of weeks though there is no record of an exacerbation in the GP notes."[47]

1. Dr Wyatt felt that there was no ongoing material contribution to Ms Field's back condition of her employment, and that, absent the incident, her back and hip problems would have run the same course.
2. Upon consideration of the employment options in the Nabenet report, Dr Wyatt would encourage a return to normal pre-injury duties in a physically undemanding role, or in suitable employment in other similar roles with sensible restrictions including no repeated bending, twisting, regular lifting over 5 kilograms, and the ability to change positions as required. In her opinion, all roles identified by Nabenet were suitable for working up to full-time hours.
3. In my view, Ms Field's work capacity presently lies somewhere between the six hours a week suggested by Dr Yong and up to full-time employment capacity as assessed by Dr Wyatt.

1. While this is a 'gateway' proceeding conducted with no oral evidence other than that of Ms Field, and the evidence adduced as to causation is more limited in scope than might be adduced in a full trial,[48] the onus is on the Ms Field to prove she suffers from an ongoing compensable injury.
2. The first consideration is to be satisfied that an incident occurred which may have resulted in injury. Given Ms Field's evidence as to her need to accommodate her serious pre-existing low back and bilateral hip conditions by being "very careful" and limiting her day-to-day activities, and not lifting any heavy weights,[49] it seems somewhat improbable she would have attempted to lift a resident off the ground other than very carefully, and being conscious of her low back condition. Her first history to the physiotherapist in April 2020, only shortly after the incident, that she did not really feel anything at the time of the incident seems likely to be the most accurate. Noting this observation, I proceed on the basis that an incident occurred.
3. In accordance with the authorities,[50] I must identify:

(a) the injury sustained in the incident;

(b) the permanent impairment consequences of any such injury which persist at the date of the hearing.

1. The material confirms progression of the severe osteoarthritic change in the lumbar spine in the period of time since she ceased work in October 2020.[51] I accept the opinions of Mr Dooley and Professor Davis that this indicates progression of naturally occurring degenerative processes, rather than a frank injury in March 2020.
2. Ms Field's claim in large part depends upon whether I accept that she experienced additional low back pain at the time of, and following the incident on 21 March 2020. On her own history to her physiotherapist, she felt no pain at the time of the incident.
3. In light of the objective evidence available, I find that if she experienced any change in her pain after the incident, it was not significant enough to mention to her treating general practitioner. It was mentioned only incidentally to allied health practitioners during treatment for her non-compensable hip condition in the months that followed.
4. On consideration of the evidence as a whole, I am not persuaded that any pain or restriction she experienced was substantially different to her condition before the incident. To the extent there was a temporary exacerbation, Ms Field has not discharged her onus to demonstrate the presence of an ongoing compensable condition. Any such exacerbation has long since resolved, and her current condition is as a result of her longstanding low back condition, which pre-existed the workplace incident.

1. Even if the aggravation-type injury has not resolved, the evidence has not established any increase in medication as a result of the incident which could be described as more than 'significant' or 'marked'. Ms Field required prescription pain medication at least three days a week before the incident to control her pain, and the increase in strength of her Voltaren prescription and more frequent over-the-counter medication is not sufficient to establish that the ongoing consequences referable to the incident are serious.
2. Unfortunately for her application, there is no objective evidence of any consequence that could be said to be more than "very considerable". I reject Ms Field's evidence she experienced a significant increase in her low back pain and other symptoms after the incident.
3. Ms Field attended her usual general practitioner regularly between March and October 2020, yet made no report of an incident at work or symptoms in her low back until 12 October 2020.
4. She had long established low back pain which affected her sleep before and after the incident. Her medication regime appears similar.
5. I accept Mr Dooley's and Professor Davis' opinion that her current condition, including the progression of her pathology over time, is at least predominantly age-related.
6. Due to the unreliability of Ms Field's evidence, I cannot be satisfied as to the other consequences relied upon such as the difference in her work capacity, recreational activities such as dancing, dressing, washing her car and other household activities because they are not supported by objective evidence.
7. Her reduced social activity as at the date of the hearing might be accepted, and fairly described as significant, but Ms Field has not established this is as a result of the work incident, as opposed to the progression of her underlying degenerative low back condition, or other medical conditions.
8. While no doubt well-meaning, the affidavit evidence of her children sits uncomfortably with the objective evidence as to the state of her low back condition prior to the incident. Neither son mentions her pre-existing low back condition. I have made findings as to her pre-existing low back and hip conditions, and infer that Ms Field did not disclose them to her children, who were adult at the time of the incident (twenty-seven and thirty-one years of age respectively).
9. Adam Harahap was not living with her at the time of the incident, and his non-specific evidence refers to pain (which she suffered before March 2020) and attendance at craft markets. I have found Ms Field's evidence about the level of her attendance at craft markets after 2015 to be unreliable. I afford little weight to Adam's evidence by way of an opinion that he now "does not believe she could physically set up a market stall".
10. Although Jarryd lived with Ms Field after the incident for a few months in 2020 and 2021, I give his account of her pain and level of function limited weight because his evidence includes "[p]rior to her injury, she hadn't mentioned having any back or hip issues to me", and nearly all of his observations are consistent with Ms Field's level of function before March 2020.

1. Her "without injury" earnings as at the date of injury were agreed at $849 gross per week.
2. It is not in dispute that of the roles proposed as suitable employment in a report by Nabenet of virtual receptionist, administration assistant, customer service representative, hire controller or sales support officer, the number of hours which would exceed the 60 per cent threshold of $509 gross per week is 12 hours.[52]
3. The reality, upon consideration of all the evidence, is that Ms Field had very limited work capacity before the incident. She was able to complete two shifts a week before and after the incident in a sedentary role, involving sleeping overnight and reception duties after the COVID pandemic was declared in mid-March 2020, so there were no visitors allowed in the residents' facility, which had a direct impact on the extent of her duties.
4. Ms Field's self-assessed current capacity as to now being able to perform one or two hours a day (perhaps a total of ten hours per week) is very similar to her capacity before the incident in March 2020. I find her evidence as to what she struggles to do now is no different to the difficulties which she might have expected in her pre-injury role:

(a) she cannot sit or stand for a long time before requiring a break,[53] so jobs such as hire controller are not suitable;

(b) she does not have sufficient training or experience to work as a medical receptionist, administrative worker or bookkeeper;[54]

(c) if she could find a suitable job it would only be for two days per week.

1. Ms Field recently applied for several jobs, which is consistent with her having some capacity to work as at the date of the hearing.
2. Doing the best I can, noting her long-term unemployment prior to the incident, and her current age, ultimately, I accept the opinion of Professor Bittar as twelve hours per week as the most realistic in terms of her current capacity for suitable employment.
3. This finding is unnecessary, as I do not accept that Ms Field has established the nature and extent of any aggravation to her pre-existing chronic low back condition as being persisting; alternatively, that any such permanent aggravation, as allowed by Mr Dooley, meets the narrative test in relation to either pain and suffering or loss of earnings.
4. My overwhelming impression is that the restrictions that obtain to her current position are in reality no different to the restrictions which attended to her pre-injury condition, which was a very light and undemanding role.
5. The plaintiff's claim in relation to loss of earnings does not meet the statutory test as she cannot satisfy me that she has suffered a permanent and ongoing loss of employment capacity resulting in 60 per cent or more loss of earnings.

1. The application is dismissed.
2. I will hear the parties as to the form of final orders, and costs.

[1] Humphries and Anor v Poljak [1992] VicRp 58; [1992] 2 VR 129 at 140

[2] [1994] VicRp 32; [1994] 1 VR 436

[3] Yirga-Denbu v Victorian WorkCover Authority (2018) 57 VR 545 at paragraph [70]

[4] [2009] VSC 454 at paragraph [171]

[5] Johns v Oaktech Pty Ltd [2020] VSCA 10 at paragraph [76]

[6] Ansett Australia Ltd v Taylor [2006] VSCA 171 and other relevant authorities

[7] See certificate dated 25 January 2019 of Dr Lydia Arnold, Defendant's Court Book ("DCB") 291

[8] Plaintiff's first affidavit sworn 19 October 2023 ("plaintiff's first affidavit") at paragraph [5]

[9] Plaintiff's second affidavit sworn 20 November 2024 ("plaintiff's second affidavit") at paragraphs [7] and [9]

[11] Plaintiff's second affidavit at paragraph [24]

[15] Plaintiff's first affidavit at paragraph [3]; PCB 234

[25] X-ray report dated 23 April 2020, PCB 148

[39] Report dated 16 August 2024, PCB 145-146

[40] See the defendant's "Statement of Calculations" dated 28 July 2025

[42] Supplementary report dated 7 July 2025, PCB 247

[45] Giankos v SPC Ardmona Operations Ltd (2011) 34 VR 120 at paragraph [96] per Warren CJ, Neave JA and Hargrave AJA; and Yirga-Denbu v Victorian WorkCover Authority (supra) at paragraph [59] per Priest, Beach and Niall JJA

[48] Findlay v Transport Accident Commission [2025] VSCA 126

[50] Petkovski v Galletti (supra); Haden Engineering Pty Ltd v McKinnon [2010] VSCA 69; (2010) 31 VR 1; and AG Staff Pty Ltd v Filipowicz; Arnold Ribbon Co Pty Ltd v Filipowicz [2012] VSCA 60; (2012) 34 VR 309

[51] See for example, x-ray dated 2 February 2021 at PCB 151; MRI scan of the lumbar spine dated 23 May 2022 at PCB 152; x‑ray dated 24 October 2022 at PCB 153; CT scan dated 19 February 2025 at PCB 257; MRI scans dated 14 April 2025 and 5 June 2025 at DCB 281 and PCB 259, and x-ray dated 12 June 2025 at PCB 261

[52] See defendant's Statement of Calculations dated 28 July 2025