� Jalali v Return to Work Corporation South Australia [2026] SAET 22

I sustained injury to my neck at the same time as my middle and lower back injuries.

1. The Corporation does not dispute that the applicant sustained injury to his thoracic and cervical spines on 14 September 2022 but submits there is not any or any sufficient evidence that he injured his lower back on that date.
2. As the extent of what is disputed is limited, the summary of the facts and medical evidence below is directed to those issues.

1. Mr Jalali was born in Tehran, Iran on 23 May 1995. He moved to Australia with his parents when aged 11. After completing secondary school, he received a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering with Honours from Flinders University in 2017. Since 2019 he has lived with his brother and has operated his own business, Blackwolves Kennels Pty Ltd, which breeds and sells purebred German Shepherd dogs.
2. Mr Jalali started going to the gym when about 16 years old. By the time he was injured in September 2022 he had competed in a number of natural physique competitions. He stated that his motivation for attending the gym was to arrest the progression of ankylosing spondylitis which he was diagnosed with. He was diagnosed with juvenile idiopathic arthritis whilst still in Iran. As a child in Iran, he had multiple incidents of joints swelling that required drainage and/or steroid injections.
3. Mr Jalali deposed that on 14 September 2022 he was carrying a suitcase containing medical equipment down some stairs in an awkward position (the work incident). He described gripping the handle of the suitcase using both hands with the suitcase in front of him. He deposed that it was hard to hold the suitcase properly due to the large and awkward size and the weight of the case.
4. Mr Jalali deposed that as he descended the stairs, the suitcase hit the step below where he was standing and made a loud noise. He tried to lift it up so that it did not drop and fall. He felt a jerking sensation in his back almost every time the suitcase hit a step. He started feeling a sharp pain in his back. By the time he returned to his workshop, the sharp pain had developed into a severely aching pain that did not go away and worsened. He also started feeling a tightness in his back.
5. Mr Jalali deposed that when he got out of bed the following day, he noticed numbness in both his legs and loss of coordination. He claimed to also feel pain and tightness in his neck, but that was less than the severe pain in his back. Thereafter his symptoms worsened each day. He was hospitalised on 27 September 2022 and underwent surgery.
6. Despite being badly restricted by the injury, and having trouble walking, standing and keeping his balance, Mr Jalali competed in the Elite Natural Physique competition on 24 September 2022.[1] Three weeks prior to the work incident, Mr Jalali's right knee was drained and injected with steroid as it had become swollen and would occasionally give way. While he was not sure what the cause of the swollen knee and some other symptoms he had at the same time was, he thought it may have been due to a Humira injection he had had to treat his ankylosing spondylitis.
7. Mr Jalali deposed that the device he carried in the suitcase (the IPC unit) weighed only 5kg or so. He estimated that the suitcase that housed the IPC unit weighed 10kg to 15kg and stated that it was awkward to carry. The dimensions of the suitcase were 75cm x 58cm x 44cm. He stated that he dragged the suitcase with both hands to the stairs and took it from level 5 of the Memorial Hospital to level 4. He then dragged the suitcase to the lifts on level 2 and took the lift to the ground floor, dragged it to the pickup area and returned to the office on level 5 he used when working at Memorial Hospital. Exhibit A3 is a shipping or consignment note which records that the package weighed 15kg but Mr Jalali said that he inserted that weight and it was an estimate. He recorded the dimensions of the suitcase after measuring it with a 30cm long ruler.
8. In a subsequent affidavit, Mr Jalali agreed with a witness called by the Corporation that he moved a diathermy electrosurgical unit (DEU) on the day he was injured. He also acknowledged that he worked on Sunday 25 September 2022, that is the day after the physique competition.
9. Mr Jalali deposed that he did not report the work incident immediately as he thought he had pulled a muscle and was worried he may lose his job if he made a report. He worked on 21 September 2022. The next day was a public holiday. He took annual leave on 23 September 2022, the day before the physique competition. He attended various gyms in the lead up to the physique competition.
10. Mr Jalali stated that he felt unwell and unsteady on the day of the competition. In the days prior, he felt unsteady as his legs felt numb and weak. Mr Jalali described falling multiple times due to feeling altered sensation in his legs. He consulted Dr Anita Lee, his rheumatologist. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was performed on 21 September 2022.
11. Mr Jalali saw Dr Weihong Liu on 22 September 2022 and was referred to a neurosurgeon. After describing his symptoms to Dr Lee in a telephone consultation on 27 September 2022, Dr Lee told Mr Jalali to attend the RAH Emergency Department, which he did after he finished work that day. An emergency posterior decompression laminectomy at T9 to T12 of the spine was performed the next day.
12. After having surgery, Mr Jalali notified his employer of the injury and lodged the two claims for compensation described above. Mr Jalali's employment was terminated on 17 March 2023.
13. Mr Jalali's leg function and coordination improved after surgery but he continued to experience numbness in both legs. At the time of his evidence affidavit he could only walk 500 metres. That improved subsequently. Mr Jalali commenced part-time employment on 30 July 2024.

1. Greg Niedzielski, Mr Jalali's supervisor, deposed that Mr Jalali did not ship an IPC unit on the day of the work incident but did ship a DEU, model FT 10, on the date of the work incident according to TNT Australia shipment notification 177288056. TNT Australia is the carrier the employer uses to ship medical units between Melbourne and Adelaide.
2. Mr Niedzielski had performed Mr Jalali's job at Memorial Hospital for 10 years before being promoted. He knows the role and the layout of the hospital well. Mr Niedzielski deposed that he repaired heavier items in the maintenance room on level 4. He added that there is more space in the maintenance room than in the small office on level 5 and there were OHS issues in storing too many items in the office which had resulted in emails from hospital staff asking that items be removed.
3. Mr Niedzielski provided data sheets with weights and dimensions of the IPC device, the DEU and the black suitcase. The suitcase was said to be a Pelican Protector Transport with dimensions of 79.5cm x 61.5cm x 44cm and a weight of 14.1 kg. The IPC unit weighs 7.3kg. Mr Niedzielski deposed that the case described by Mr Jalali would have been too large for one IPC unit and could have accommodated three of them. He said larger cases were used for items such like a DEU. A DEU weighs 10.1kg.
4. Mr Niedzielski gave evidence that there is no need to store a case on level 5 of Memorial Hospital because as soon as a functioning device arrives to replace a faulty device, the faulty device is placed in the suitcase the functioning device came in and returned to Medtronics in Melbourne.
5. Mr Niedzielski gave evidence that TNT Australia would have levied an additional charge if the package shipped by Mr Jalali was understated by 11kg. He gave an example of an instance of that occurring not long before he gave evidence.
6. Mr Niedzielski said that no additional charge was levied by TNT Australia in relation to shipping the DEU on 14 September 2022. That evidence was received de bene esse. While the concessions made by the Corporation mean a ruling is not essential, I accept and admit the evidence. The terms of the cartage contract are clear, [2] and Mr Niedzielski has first hand experience in Mr Jalali's role and with an extra charge being imposed when the weight of a shipped item was understated.

1. Mary Teresa (Terri) Roberts is a director of Elite Natural Physique Pty Ltd and acts as the MC at competitions. Ms Roberts described the competitions Mr Jalali competed in as emphasising having a natural physique and extremely low body fat. While Mr Jalali earned his professional ticket after a competition in 2021, he only ever competed as an amateur.
2. At the competition registration on Friday 23 September 2022, Ms Roberts saw Mr Jalali walking in a stilted way as if he could not use his hips. She was alarmed as he was one of the organisations star athletes. She asked him what was wrong and he said that he had hurt himself at work a few weeks earlier. Ms Roberts thinks that Mr Jalali may have said he was lifting something heavy at the time. She was extremely concerned for him. He came first in the men's classic physique class as one of only two competitors, and third in the Runway Model event, probably because he was not walking very well.

1. AP Herkes is an experienced neurologist who reviewed Mr Jalali in relation to his neck injury claim at the request of the Corporation. Based on Mr Jalali's history of only having neck pain after the lifting incident at work, AP Herkes considered that the neck symptoms resulted from the work injury and were not a direct result of his ankylosing spondylitis.
2. In a subsequent report, AP Herkes stated that the neck symptoms were the pain in his neck and shoulder and intermittent numbness in the right middle finger. The diagnosis was of nonspecific radicular symptoms related to cervical spondylosis suggestive of some C7 nerve root irritation.
3. After reviewing the MRI, AP Herkes considered that the neck symptoms were due to a mild exacerbation of mild changes previously noted on a cervical MRI, such that he developed symptoms after the work event. The main presentation was due to swelling and compression of the thoracic spine.

1. Dr Roberto D'Onise is an occupational physician. After taking a history, examining Mr Jalali and considering the documentation he was referred to, Dr D'Onise diagnosed thoracic cord myelopathy, mechanical neck and lower back pain. After surgical treatment, there remains altered gait, loss of lower limb function, sensory change and bowel and bladder disturbance.
2. In oral evidence, Dr D'Onise stated there was no sign of spinal cord changes in the thoracic spine, such as increased signal or evidence of swelling, in the 2019 MRI whereas there was in the 21 September 2022 MRI. In cross-examination the doctor agreed the changes could have developed in the three years between the MRIs. He also agreed that ankylosing spondylitis could have caused the inflammatory change. Dr D'Onise agreed that cutting caloric consumption dramatically in the lead up to the September 2022 competition would have put stress on Mr Jalali's body but said it was not the same as weightlifting stress. He was not in a position to comment as to the nature or extent of the stress caused.
3. When told another witness had observed that the ligamentum flavum had markedly thickened and perhaps calcified, Dr D'Onise agreed that would have happened before the work injury. He disagreed that the pre-existing symptoms would have required surgery in any case. He considered the symptoms came from S1 and not the thoracic spine.
4. Dr D'Onise thought that Dr Bonkowski stated that lifting was unlikely to injure the thoracic spine, a proposition that he disagreed with. Counsel for the Corporation pointed out there had been neurological symptoms in the lower back for three months prior to the work event, including on the day before the work incident. The disagreement is moot given the concessions made by the Corporation. Dr D'Onise agreed with AP Herkes that, in isolation, the neck symptoms do not give rise to an incapacity for work.

1. Dr Osti is an orthopaedic surgeon who first reviewed Mr Jalali in January 2024 at the request of his solicitors. In his first report, Dr Osti obtained a history similar to that provided by Mr Jalali in his evidence affidavit. Dr Osti observed a spastic and antalgic gait, especially with the left leg. The presentation was consistent with paraparesis mainly affecting the left leg and linked to spinal cord compression leading to irreversible thoracic myelopathy more marked between T9 and T11. He considered that the work event brought forward any potential need for future surgery "by a minimum of 10 years".[3]
2. In his second report, Dr Osti was asked to comment on the report of Dr Yu Chao Lee. He said he had no substantial disagreement with Dr Lee as he considered it likely that the "underlying spinal condition and the presence of significant pre-existing narrowing of his spinal canal, are of significance for the subsequent development of substantial neurological deterioration".[4] That was said in the context of Dr Osti having stated in the report that any injury of 14 September 2022 "should be considered a significant contributing factor to his current significant spinal disability".[5]
3. In oral evidence Dr Osti explained that his agreement with the views of Dr Yu Chao Lee was based on Mr Jalali's longstanding spinal condition rendering him "more vulnerable to the onset of significant neurological deficit".[6] Following that, he said that myelopathy was not present based upon the 2019 MRI but was present based upon the 2022 MRI.
4. Dr Osti disagreed with Dr Yu Chao Lee's comment that findings of bone marrow oedema are more consistent with earlier lifting incidents, such as in Mr Jalali's gym work, than the work injury of 14 September 2022.[7] He felt the comment was too dogmatic and was not supported by the 2019 MRI. Like Dr D'Onise, Dr Osti disagreed with Dr Bonkowski's view that the lifting incident Mr Jalali described was not likely to injure the thoracic spine or was more likely to injure the lumbar spine.
5. In relation to the lumbar spine, Dr Osti said it was difficult to say what injury was sustained on 14 September 2022, but it was the same injury as that sustained to the thoracic spine but, it did not lead to nerve damage. The nerve damage was specific to one part of the thoracic spine.[8]
6. In cross-examination, Dr Osti agreed that the ligamentum flavum was heavily calcified at the time of surgery and the calcification would have been a gradual process. He said that while there was no myelopathy identified in the 2019 MRI, calcification may have been present at that time as calcification is better detected by CAT scan than by MRI. Dr Osti accepted that at the time of surgery, myelopathy, calcification of the ligamentum flavum and scarring of the dura were all present based on Dr Yu Chao Lee's surgical findings. Dr Osti also stated that the ankylosing spondylitis was the cause of the calcification, and by logical extension given his next answer, the dural scarring. He agreed that neither the calcification of the ligamentum flavum nor the dural scarring were likely to be the result of the incident of 14 September 2022.
7. Next Dr Osti said that while it was possible that Mr Jalali could have had the sudden onset of paraparesis without any twisting, there was twisting, and if the history is reliable, the twisting gave rise to the onset of paraparesis.
8. When asked about the connection between the pre-existing state of the spinal cord, and whether the situation would have deteriorated regardless of the 14 September 2022 injury, Dr Osti said:[9]

I believe that Dr (YC) Lee's position on saying this man had an underlying pre-existing condition is a very reasonable position. And that the cause of the pressure on the cord is his condition. He's also - I don't think there is any argument on that. The reason why this man developed thoracic cord compression is because he had ankylosing spondylitis.

...

It wasn't like a bulging disc or a fracture - like falling off scaffolding or being shot, or something like that. So the issue here is why did he develop this progressive and very significant problem after this lifting and twisting injury, whilst he didn't have it before? And the reason is because he had this vulnerable situation of the thoracic cord with possibly very localised area in this thoracic spine where the movement would have occurred and so the stress may have been absorbed, rather than distributed over a number of levels, which unfortunately happens in ankylosing spondylitis. And that was enough to trigger this.

1. Dr Bonkowski is a neurosurgeon who reviewed Mr Jalali in November 2022 at the request of the Corporation. The history given to Dr Bonkowski was not as fulsome as that given to other doctors. Mr Jalali was recorded as stating that "everything had been fine" prior to the injury other than a little bit of pain a week of two before.[10] Mr Jalali described walking and swimming but did not mention that he attended the gym regularly.
2. The medical investigations of Mr Jalali are described in great detail in Dr Bonkowski's report. He expressed the view that the work injury "may have had a contributory role to play in acceleration of an underlying pathological process but I do not think it was a primary causative factor".[11]
3. In a second report, Dr Bonkowski repeated his earlier view, stating that weightlifting would have had a greater role to play than the work injury of 14 September 2022 as it imparts forces to the lumbar spine and thoracolumbar junction. He maintained the view that the work incident was not a significant contributing cause of the injury.
4. In cross-examination Dr Bonkowski was asked to assume that Mr Jalali was not a weightlifter but he "simply lifted weights at the gym".[12] That was because Dr Bonkowski referred to the effect of performing a snatch. He was told Mr Jalali did not perform lifts such as a snatch. Despite that, and despite the mechanics of the injury being explained to him, Dr Bonkowski maintained his view that the work incident was not a significant contributing cause of any injury sustained on 14 September 2022.
5. Dr Bonkowski asked why Mr Jalali would carry a suitcase in front of him as he described and said doing so did not make sense. He did not defer to Dr D'Onise's view when asked to because he is a spinal surgeon and deals with issues like the issues in this case every day as part of his practice.
6. When it was put to Dr Bonkowski that Dr Anita Lee did not consider the symptoms she recorded just prior to the work incident were consistent with spinal cord compression, Dr Bonkowski disagreed with her and stated that Dr Osti agreed with him on that issue.

1. Dr Yu Chao Lee performed surgery on Mr Jalali after his emergency department admission to the RAH. In his first report Dr YC Lee stated that the MRI findings were confirmed intraoperatively. Thickening and calcification of the ligamentum flavum was noted. Postoperatively, the findings were as expected. Further damage was prevented by surgical decompression but the pre-surgical spinal cord damage was unable to be reversed.
2. In his second report and in response to specific questions, Dr YC Lee stated that Mr Jalali's ankylosing spondylitis was a significant contributing cause of the facet joint hypertrophy, dura and ligamentum flavum thickening and the result was thoracic cord compression and later, symptomatic thoracic myelopathy.
3. In oral evidence Dr YC Lee stated that carrying a suitcase down some stairs would not have caused the calcification of the ligamentum flavum or the scarring of the dura that he observed during surgery, but it may have contributed to the aggravation experienced on 14 September 2022. He said that he could not be certain whether the result was a temporary worsening or a permanent worsening but suggested there may be some degree of the latter.
4. In cross-examination, Dr YC Lee was asked about the effects of the Humira injections Mr Jalali was receiving from Dr Anita Lee. He said that he was not familiar with Humira. He did however confirm that he thought there was an element of work-related contribution given that a weight of 24kg was being lifted and hit the step each time.
5. It was also put to Dr YC Lee that Mr Jalali had tingling in his feet, not in his legs, and that the symptoms he experienced prior to the work incident were related to Humira rather than any developing thoracic myelopathy. He said it was difficult to answer that proposition.
6. In re-examination, Dr YC Lee was asked whether there was a contribution or a significant contribution to Mr Jalali's presentation from the work incident. He said it was almost impossible to be certain and that he did not appreciate the difference. In clarifying that response he said it was a "reasonable contribution or component".[13] When asked to clarify his answer as to whether Humira was responsible for the symptoms Mr Jalali experienced in the weeks prior to the work incident, Dr YC Lee said it was very hard to say.

1. Dr A Lee is a rheumatologist with a special interest in early rheumatoid arthritis. In her medical report she stated that she first treated Mr Jalali for ankylosing spondylitis in April 2013. Dr A Lee described Mr Jalali's presentation on 13 September 2022 when he had developed coldness, pins and needles in the soles of the feet with hyperextending his back. He had also recently had a swollen right knee which required an injection. At a telephone consultation on 27 September 2022, Mr Jalali described about a 50% loss of feeling in his legs. Dr YC Lee referred to RAH notes in this way:[14]

His presentation in more detail as recorded at the RAH Emergency was that of around several weeks of progressive lower limb paraesthesia and ataxia, poor coordination of legs, two falls due to poor balance, several episodes of urinary incontinence and saddle paraesthesia. He did not have any bowel symptoms to suggest cauda equina syndrome. He described worsening 1-2 weeks after lifting some heavy equipment at work (carrying equipment up and down stairs), with sensory changes down both legs, thighs to feet. There was also some increased neck pain.

1. Dr A Lee was asked about the relationship of the symptoms she observed on 13 September 2022 and Mr Jalali's presentation after 14 September 2022 and whether the former might be the effects of the Humira injection he had every fortnight. She said this:[15]

That's one possibility, particularly neurological side effects I was concerned about. And the one that I mentioned in my request was that particularly of multiple sclerosis, which can present with the electric shocks that he mentioned in his back, and also with the pins and needles in the soles of his feet. That could certainly be a feature of a side effect of Humira, or it could be a nerve root compression, for example, of S1 nerve root. And that was what I was worried about at the time.

1. Dr A Lee then said she was not worried about spinal cord compression at that stage and did not consider that the work incident was a worsening of a prior injury or condition. She agreed that the symptoms Mr Jalali displayed after 14 September 2022 were of a different nature and degree to those he displayed prior to that date.
2. Dr A Lee declined to answer a question directed to the relationship between thickening of the ligamentum flavum that would lead to myelopathy or whether she agreed with Dr Osti that Mr Jalali came to surgery earlier because of the work incident as she said those issues did not fall within her expertise.
3. In re-examination Dr A Lee agreed that marrow oedema was a marker of inflammation and it could not be said when the oedema occurred.

1. Counsel addressed separately in relation to each segment of the spine. Their submissions in relation to each of the three spines are set out below.

1. Relevantly to this matter, s 7 of the RTW Act provides:

(1) This Act applies to an injury if (and only if) it arises from employment.

(2) Subject to this section, an injury arises from employment if -

(a) in the case of a physical injury - the injury arises out of or in the course of employment and the employment was a significant contributing cause of the injury; and

(b) ...

(3) In connection with the application of subsection (2) to an injury that is, or results from, the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, deterioration or recurrence of a prior injury (a prescribed event) -

(a) in the case of an injury other than a psychiatric injury - employment must be a significant contributing cause of the prescribed event; and

(b) ...

and then the injury is only compensable to the extent of and for the duration of the relevant aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, deterioration or recurrence.

1. The Incident and Injury Report Mr Jalali completed on 5 October 2022 and his first affidavit refer to him carrying an IPC loan unit on 14 September 2022. Mr Niedzielski deposed that a faulty IPC unit was tested on 14 September 2022 but was not shipped. He added that the suitcase was too large for an IPC unit, and excessive carriage charges would be incurred by sending an UIPC unit in a large suitcase. Mr Niedzielski deposed that a DEU is recorded as being shipped by Mr Jalali on 14 September 2022.
2. Clause 19.4 of the cartage contract states that an item may be charged by weight or by cubic volume.[16] If the suitcase with the DEU inside was charged by reference to cubic volume, that would explain why no extra charge was levied by the carrier despite the item being 11kg heavier than Mr Jalali described. The evidence does not establish the basis on which the item was charged but Mr Niedzielski's affidavit suggests that it may have been charged by volume and not weight. Based on the data provided by Mr Niedzielski, which I accept, I find that Mr Jalali shipped a DEU in a suitcase that weighed a total of 24.2kg on 14 September 2022.
3. While counsel for Mr Jalali reiterated many times during the hearing that Mr Jalali did not undertake weightlifting, that was precisely what he did most days of the week. He was not attempting to become as muscular as possible like a competitive bodybuilder might attempt to do, and he was not a powerlifter, but he did build muscle mass through performing a large amount of resistance exercise with weights. Just prior to the work incident, Mr Jalali was 180cm tall, weighed 89kg and had less than 10% body fat. While Mr Jalali's body mass index (BMI) was described in one report as 27%, he had very low body fat. Those measurements and the photographs of Mr Jalali taken at the 24 September 2022 competition show that Mr Jalali had managed to build a significant amount of muscle.
4. Mr Jalali's size and strength are relevant because, as Dr Bonkowski observed, Mr Jalali's manner of lifting the suitcase down one flight of stairs was very strange. He lifted it from one stair to another in front of him and lifted and dropped it onto the step below. That manner of lifting is not described in the Incident and Injury Report but is in Mr Jalali's first evidence affidavit. The suitcase weighed 24.2kg and was 44cm deep, so it would have been heavy and somewhat awkward to carry with one hand. However, based on Mr Jalali's age, size and strength, the latter taken from his description of the weights that he usually lifted, I would expect Mr Jalali to have been able of carry a 24.2kg suitcase down one flight of stairs in one hand unless he was injured or disabled at the time.
5. The upper limit of some of the weights Mr Jalali described lifting in his affidavit was not the maximum amount that he was able to lift. He described bench pressing between 20kg and 60kg in his affidavit. When asked if 60kg was the maximum weight that he had bench pressed, this exchange followed:[17]

Not necessarily. I mean that was the average range that I used to do. Maybe, perhaps, in the before times, maybe I did more, but I can't recall. This was the usual weights that I would normally do.

MR COLGRAVE: Mr Jalali, you know, I've been to a gym before.

WITNESS: Yes.

MR COLGRAVE: His Honour has been to the gym, I'm sure, and most people remember what the highest weights that they've lifted on certain apparatus is. What's the highest weight you've ever bench pressed?

WITNESS: See, the thing is, I didn't think always to myself that lifting the heaviest weight is going to get me the best result.

MR COLGRAVE: The question I asked was, what's the highest weight you've ever bench pressed?

WITNESS: I don't recall, to be honest with you. I didn't take recordings of them.

MR COLGRAVE: So you've got no recollection of ever bench pressing more than 60 kilograms?

WITNESS: I do, but I don't recall it being a regular thing that I used to do.

MR COLGRAVE: Would you have bench pressed 100 kilograms?

WITNESS: I don't think I was that strong to do that.

MR COLGRAVE: Would you have bench pressed 90 kilograms?

WITNESS: I don't know. I can't recall, to be honest, but the regular weights that I used to do is what I've stated.

1. That evidence causes me concern because Mr Jalali twice avoided saying that 60kg was not the maximum weight he had bench pressed. He also said he was unable to recall whether he had leg pressed more than 120kg, the upper limit of the usual weight range he gave for that exercise. As counsel for the Corporation said in the passage, it is unusual that a young man who was extremely dedicated to weight training could not recall the maximum weight that he had bench pressed.
2. Mr Jalali said that he thought that he was not strong enough to bench press 100kg but did not answer in that way when asked if he could bench press 90kg. I am not satisfied that Mr Jalali's answers on this subject revealed the true extent of his recollection.
3. Another issue in cross-examination was Mr Jalali's attendances at gyms at around the time of the work incident. Mr Jalali attended Next Generation gym in North Adelaide and several Anytime Fitness gyms. Mr Jalali attended Anytime Fitness gyms at Blackwood on 20 August 2022, 11 September 2022, and 16 September 2022, and at Daw Park on 21 September 2022.[18] The Next Generation gym records show that Mr Jalali attended there between 4.44pm and 7.46pm on 12 September 2022, between 4.23pm and 6.58pm on 14 September 2022, the date of the work incident, and for about half an hour on each of 18 and 19 September 2022.[19] He could not recall why the attendances on the latter two dates were much shorter than on the first two dates. He said that on 14 September 2022 he devoted about half the time spent there to exercising and also used the sauna, warm spa and practiced his posing.
4. It seems odd that Mr Jalali spent two and a half hours at the gym after sustaining a serious injury. Even if he thought the injury was a sprain or strain as he said, rest would have been the best treatment. Using the spa and sauna to try and alleviate his symptoms is understandable, but training with weights like he did would not help him recover from a sprain or strain or a more serious injury and it risked making things worse.
5. Mr Jalali not only lifted the suitcase down a flight of stairs in an unusual manner, he dragged the suitcase on flat surfaces rather than carrying it with one hand or holding it to his torso with both arms. He could have done the latter by putting the suitcase on a table, putting the DEU into it, and lifting the suitcase while standing up, avoiding the need to bend down.
6. Mr Jalali said he developed numbness in his legs prior to the MRI on 21 September 2022. When asked when the leg symptoms commenced, he said:[20]

I don't fully recall. I believe perhaps it started maybe the next day after 14 September when I woke up and got out of bed.

1. I am satisfied that Mr Jalali was experiencing leg and saddle symptoms before the work incident took place. The presence of symptoms would explain why he needed to move the suitcase in an unusual way and why he struggled to move it even over flat surfaces.
2. While I have reservations about some aspects of Mr Jalali's evidence, I am satisfied that he moved a suitcase with a DEU inside it on 14 September 2022. I find that Mr Jalali sustained work injuries on that date. The nature and extent of the injuries is what the parties disagree on.

1. The Corporation agreed with counsel for Mr Jalali that consistent with the opinion of AP Herkes, the neck injury sustained by Mr Jalali on 14 September 2022 was an aggravation of pre-existing cervical spondylosis.
2. In his 16 October 2024 report, AP Herkes said there was an "exacerbation of the mild changes previously noted on his cervical MRI".[21] He did not use the word 'aggravation' in the report. While "exacerbation" suggests a temporary escalation of symptoms, in oral evidence AP Herkes did not agree with counsel for the Corporation that the exacerbation of cervical symptoms Mr Jalali experienced was milder than he had described in his 14 June 2023 report. AP Herkes also disagreed that there was any pre-existing ankylosing spondylitis of the cervical spine.[22]
3. While AP Herkes referred to the cervical spine injury as an exacerbation and not an aggravation, it seems clear that he took the view the work incident initiated cervical spinal symptoms. I accept the submission of counsel for Mr Jalali that the incident of 14 September 2022 caused or was an aggravation of pre-existing cervical spondylosis.

1. The Corporation submitted that there was no evidence, or no sufficient evidence, to support the lumbar spine injury claim, and no evidence of a medical expenses being incurred in relation to the lumbar spine. The latter submission raised the issue of whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the lumbar spine injury. Counsel for Mr Jalali challenged the submission and contended that the proposition there was no lumbar spine injury was not put to Dr Osti or Dr D'Onise.
2. The Corporation cited this evidence in support of its submission:[23]

What injury do you say, Dr Osti, that Mr Jalali sustained to his lumbar spine?

WITNESS: Well, I have to - I don't want to use the words "making it up as I go," but obviously I have to improvise. If Mr Jalali complained of debilitating - it's very, very difficult, and to a point it's impossible to distinguish when someone lifts and twists something heavy in an awkward position then to say, "Well this is an injury that has specifically affected this part of the spine and not this other part of the spine," because as I said when you were asking me about Dr Lee's opinion on the trauma is that you get loading on the whole of the spine not just on one part or the other.

The issue with Mr Jalali is this condition, this ankylosing spondylitis, that could have led to his spine being much stiffer in the lower part which is not what you expect in a normal individual, and potentially having one area of discrete mobility in the thoracic area, which led to - so I know I'm waffling around, but what I have suggested is that if I was asked, I would say, well, it's the same injury that he suffered from a thoracic spine, but not leading to nerve damage, because the nerve damage was specific to one part of the thoracic spine.

MS DE PALMA: Okay.

WITNESS: So a strain to the joints of the lumbar spine, if I was to put it in writing.

1. Counsel for Mr Jalali relied on Dr YC Lee's evidence that the way Mr Jalali moved the suitcase down the stairs placed stress on his whole spine. I do not accept that evidence. When questioned about the nature and extent of the work contribution to the thoracic spine injury, Dr YC Lee said many times that it was difficult to be certain. His lack of clarity and confidence was even greater when he was asked about a lumbar spine injury. His comment that the whole spine would be subject to stress lifting the suitcase was too generalised and did not have regard to the facts. Dr Osti did not adopt Dr YC Lee's explanation when offered to do so:[24]

MS DE PALMA: Well, Dr Yu Chao Lee has expressed the opinion that every time the suitcase hit the step, it would have put force through the thoracic spine. Do you agree with that?

WITNESS: What I can say is that if you are lifting something heavy, the stress will go through the spine, the whole of the spine. Now, where the spine is more vulnerable, that's a different issue. In a normal spine, I would accept Mr Bonkowski's opinion that the lumbar area is more likely to be injured than the thoracic area in a normal spine. But as Mr Jalali already had established ankylosing spondylitis it's possible. I'm not saying it's certain, because by no means do we have proof that that is the case. But it's certainly possible, plausible and medically reasonable to suggest that the trauma may have been more discreet in the thoracic area because of lack of movement in the other parts of the spine.

1. Dr YC Lee did not frame his evidence by referring to Mr Jalali's spine. Dr Osti explained why that was important:[25]

So the issue with this particular individual, Mr Jalali, is that, as I said, the extrapolation and the logical potential interpretation of trauma are not going to be applicable for him. And so it is possible that, for example, he had a lumbar area that was actually almost stiffer than the thoracic area for whatever reason. And as he lifted or twisted or whatever, the stress was applied in that particular area of the spine, which already was obviously under duress because of the calcification of the ligament. And therefore that caused sudden deterioration of his neurological status. Obviously, I have no proof that that is the case, but I think that's probably a very logical explanation.

1. In that passage, Dr Osti is talking about the injury to the thoracic spine. He speculates that congenital stiffness of the lumbar spine may have transmitted greater force to the thoracic spine and resulted in that segment of the spine being injured.
2. Dr D'Onise thought that the S1 level of the spine may have been injured in the work incident. That view was speculative and was not shared by any other expert witness. I do not accept that evidence.
3. I accept the Corporation's submission and find that any injury Mr Jalali sustained to his lumbar spine on 14 September 2022 was a transitory exacerbation of his lumbar-spinal symptoms. The evidence does not persuade me that the work incident caused an aggravation of Mr Jalali's lumbar spinal symptoms that resulted in permanently worsened symptoms.

1. There is little doubt that there was a permanent worsening of Mr Jalali's symptoms referable to his thoracic spine following the work incident. The Corporation conceded there was "an aggravation of the underlying condition that gives rise to compensable injury".[26]
2. The position taken by Mr Jalali in relation to the nature and extent of the thoracic spine injury was described in this way:[27]

And what the applicant also says is, even if your Honour accepts that there was pre-existing cord compression, then this twisting incident and then a deterioration of the compression and the subsequent myelopathy and paraparesis - that even in those circumstances, which we dispute, the injury is aggravation of spinal cord compression and consequent myelopathy and paraparesis. It is not aggravation of ankylosing spondylitis. The ankylosing spondylitis, I guess, made the conditions as they were. Led to the state of the worker as he was at the time of the work injury, but there was no aggravation of his ankylosing spondylitis.

What happened was that that injury and the consequent calcification and so forth made the conditions ripe for what happened, but it's not an aggravation of that condition, whichever way your Honour - whatever finding your Honour makes in respect of whether there was or wasn't pre-existing cord compression before the incident at work, and as I've pointed out in my outline of submissions, the - all the doctors agreed that the pre-existing ankylosing spondylitis made the thoracic spine more vulnerable to injury. Now, the doctors were also in agreement that the calcification of the ligamentum flavum does not of itself necessarily cause myelopathy.

So the issue really is for your Honour, in my submission, was there a pre-existing compression of the spinal cord? And depending on your - the answer to that, the injury should be described as either an aggravation of pre-existing cord compression resulting in the myelopathy and the paraparesis. It is not an aggravation of ankylosing spondylitis. Now, as I said, the applicant submits that there is insufficient evidence to make a finding that there was pre-existing compression of the spinal cord...

1. The Corporation did not dispute that there was a straining and twisting of the thoracic spine in the work incident, but it submitted that the incident caused an aggravation of the underlying ankylosing spondylitis.[28]
2. The difficulty with the submission made by Mr Jalali is that it does not accord with the view of Dr Osti, whose evidence I also accept on this issue. Dr Osti provided the clearest explanation of the nature and effect of the work incident of 14 September 2022. Whilst contending that the incident caused an injury and the symptoms Mr Jalali experienced, Dr Osti also said that Mr Jalali developed thoracic cord compression because he had pre-existing ankylosing spondylitis. Dr Osti expressly agreed with Dr YC Lee, who had made the same comment, before making the comment to that effect set out above.
3. I find that Mr Jalali's spinal cord was compressed at the thoracic spine before the work incident of 14 September 2022. It is not disputed that thickening of the ligamentum flavum and scarring of the dura were present before then. I find that some of the symptoms Mr Jalali experienced before 14 September 2022 were attributable to pre-existing spinal cord compression. To the extent that Dr A Lee suggested all Mr Jalali's prior symptoms were attributable to the Humira injection that she administered before 14 September 2022, I reject that evidence and accept the evidence of AP Herkes and Dr Bonkowski on the issue. I find that Mr Jalali lifted the suitcase in the way that he did because he was experiencing symptoms of spinal cord compression prior to moving the suitcase.
4. The word "injury" is defined in s 4 of the RTW Act as follows:

(a) any physical or mental injury including -

(i) loss, deterioration or impairment of a limb, organ or part of the body, or of a physical, mental or sensory faculty; or

(ii) a disease; or

(iii) disfigurement; or

(b) where the context admits - the death of the worker,

and includes an injury that is, or results from, the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, deterioration or recurrence of a prior injury;

1. The broad, protean definition of injury found in the RTW Act includes diseases and the deterioration of a body part or system which enables a previously quiescent or asymptomatic condition that becomes symptomatic to be treated as an injury. The definition also embraces aggravations, accelerations, etc. of prior injuries.
2. Mr Jalali's argument fails because the last part of the definition of "injury" does not confine an injury to being the event that is an aggravation, acceleration, etc. of a prior injury, but also extends to events that "result from" aggravations, accelerations etc. of a prior injury. In other words, if the thoracic spine work injury of 14 February 2022 resulted from the pre-existing ankylosing spondylitis, the definition is satisfied.
3. The high level of correspondence between the pre-existing ankylosing spondylitis and the work injuries sustained that Mr Jalali's submission is based upon is not required. The thoracic spine injury does not have to be an aggravation, acceleration, etc. of the pre-existing ankylosing spondylitis. It is sufficient that the injury results from the pre-existing ankylosing spondylitis, which it does in the opinion of Dr Osti, Dr YC Lee, Dr Bonkowski and AP Herkes. I accept the evidence of those doctors on the issue.
4. In Comcare v Martin,[29] the High Court considered the meaning of the phrase "as a result of" in the context of the reasonable administrative action defence to mental injuries in s 5A(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act). After observing that to suffer a disease within the meaning of the SRC Act, an employee must have suffered an ailment or aggravation of an ailment that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the person's employment, the Court held:[30]

When the exclusionary phrase is so read, it becomes apparent that an employee has suffered a disease "as a result of" administrative action if the administrative action is a cause in fact of the disease which the employee has suffered. The administrative action need not be the sole cause. There may be multiple causes, some of which might even be related to other aspects of the employee's employment. What is necessary is that the taking of the administrative action is an event without which the employee's ailment or aggravation would not have been a disease: it would not have been contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee's employment.

1. Because it was found at first instance that returning Ms Martin to her substantive position was a direct and foreseeable consequence of a decision made to counsel her, "[t]he deterioration of her mental condition, on the Tribunal's finding, was triggered by her contemplation of what she perceived to be a consequence of the decision".[31]
2. If Mr Jalali's submission was accepted, it would restrict the ambit of what constitutes a work injury within the meaning of the RTW Act. A work injury would need to be the aggravation, acceleration, etc. of the pre-existing injury or condition, rather than result from the aggravation, etc. of a pre-existing injury or condition. The words "result from" enable a broader range of circumstances to give rise to a work injury.
3. Section 7 of the RTW Act is satisfied because the work injury arose in the course of employment and employment was a significant contributing cause of the injury. The latter requirement is satisfied because Mr Jalali was required to move the suitcase as part of his employment. To use the words of Parker J in The State of South Australia v Roberts,[32] employment was an important or influential cause of the thoracic spine injury.[33] His Honour also observed that there can be multiple causes of an injury and a cause that is less important than another cause can, nonetheless, be a significant contributing cause of injury.[34]

1. The applicant's claim for compensation dated 10 October 2022 is accepted as an aggravation of underlying ankylosing spondylitis of the thoracic spine sustained on 14 September 2022 and is a prescribed event under s 7(3) of the Return to Work Act 2014 (RTW Act).
2. The applicant is entitled to weekly payments of income support for a period of 104 weeks based on average weekly earnings of $1,254.22 (which amount includes allowances of $4.22).
3. The applicant is entitled to medical and like expenses reasonably incurred by him in consequence of the work injury described in order 1 under s 33 of the RTW Act.
4. The applicant is entitled to costs of this proceeding to be agreed or adjudicated.
5. The parties have liberty to apply in relation to the quantification of any amount of compensation.

1. The applicant's claim for compensation dated 8 May 2023 is accepted as an aggravation of pre-existing cervical spondylosis of the cervical spine sustained on 14 September 2022 and is a prescribed event under s 7(3) of the RTW Act.
2. The applicant has no entitlement to weekly payments of income support further or additional to the entitlement described in order 2.
3. The applicant is entitled to medical and like expenses reasonably incurred by him in consequence of the work injury described in order 6 under s 33 of the RTW Act.
4. The applicant is entitled to costs of this proceeding to be agreed or adjudicated.
5. The parties have liberty to apply in relation to the quantification of any amount of compensation.

[1] Affidavit of Shayan Jalali dated 3 April 2024 [33].

[2] Affidavit dated 27 February 2025 [5], TB 80-81.

[7] At [6] of Dr Lee's report of 5 August 2024, TB 208.

[29] [2016] HCA 43.

[32] [2018] SASCFC 25.