1. Any permanent impairment of the lumbar spine assessed by the Medical Assessor is to be combined with an agreed impairment arising from the same date of injury as follows:

(a) right lower extremity (knee) 1% WPI, and

(b) left lower extremity (knee) 1% WPI.

1. The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs as agreed or assessed.

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

1. The applicant makes a claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment to the lumbar spine and left and right knees.
2. The only issue requiring determination by the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) is whether the applicant sustained an injury to her lumbar spine in the course of her employment as a police officer while employed by the respondent.
3. The applicant pleads, in the alternative, that the injury is either a disease injury or an aggravation of a disease injury as provided by s 4(b)(i) and s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) resulting from indivisible micro-trauma occurring as a result of activities undertaken in her employment_._
4. The respondent disputes liability for injury to the lumbar spine.
5. Liability with respect to injury to the left and right knees has been accepted by the respondent and indeed the resulting impairment has been agreed between the parties.

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

(a) whether the applicant sustained an injury her lumbar spine as a result of the nature and conditions of her employment with the respondent, and

(b) if injury is established, the degree of permanent impairment, which would ultimately be a matter for assessment by a Medical Assessor.

1. Liability with respect to injury to the left and right knees is not in dispute and the parties have reached agreement with respect to the resulting permanent impairment.
2. Any permanent impairment of the lumbar spine assessed by the Medical Assessor is to be combined with an agreed impairment arising from the same date of injury as follows:

(a) right lower extremity (knee) 1% WPI, and

(b) left lower extremity (knee) 1% WPI.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

1. The matter was listed for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing before me on

14 October 2025 by MS Teams. The applicant was in attendance represented by

Mr McEnaney of Counsel instructed by Ms Martin and Ms Reimann. The respondent was represented by Mr Barter of counsel instructed by Ms Ezzy. A representative of the respondent's insurer was also in attendance. 2. I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

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

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

(b) Reply and attached documents;

(c) Application to Lodge Additional Documents filed by the respondent dated

8 October 2025, and

(d) Application to Lodge Additional Documents filed by the applicated dated

9 October 2025.

1. There was no objection to either bundle of additional documents, which are relevant to the issues in dispute between the parties and as such they were introduced into the proceedings.

1. Section 294(2) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 provides that a brief statement is required setting out the reasons for the determination reached by the Commission.
2. The applicant carries the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.

Did the applicant sustain an injury to her lumbar spine

1. The applicant pleads that as a result of the nature and conditions of her employment as a police officer with the respondent she sustained a series of indivisible injuries or

micro-trauma to her lumbar spine causing aggravation, acceleration and exacerbation of degenerative changes in her lumbar spine. That is an aggravation of underlying disease being an injury in accordance with s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act. 2. Counsel for the applicant, without objection from the respondent, also submitted that the nature and conditions of the applicant's employment caused the condition in the lumbar spine. That is that it was a disease injury in accordance with s 4(b)(i) of the 1987 Act. 3. Section 4(b) of the 1987 Act provides that injury:

(i) a disease that is contracted by a worker in the course of employment but only if the employment was the main contributing factor to contracting the disease, and

(ii) the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration in the course of employment of any disease, but only if the employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the disease."

1. To succeed in her claim, the applicant must establish that her employment as a police officer with the respondent was the main contributing factor to either the contraction of her disease or to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the disease.
2. The applicant relies on her own detailed statement dated 3 July 2025 where she sets out details of her employment with the respondent and the nature of her duties.
3. There is no evidence nor any submission on the part of the respondent that what is set out in the applicant's statement evidence is not an accurate reflection of the nature of work undertaken by police officers employed by the respondent in New South Wales.
4. The applicant was attested as a police officer with the respondent on 14 December 2005 at which time she was 21 years of age.
5. The applicant states that during the entirety of her career she has "engaged in rolling, wrestling, bending, twisting, lifting, holding, falling and high impact incidents". Her statement evidence sets out the physical and difficult nature of the role of a police officer.
6. She also gives evidence of the difficulties she had in wearing her appointments belt.
7. The applicant states that she particularly experienced back pain during defensive tactics training. The applicant submitted it was these activities which either caused or aggravated the condition in her lumbar spine.
8. The applicant relied on the opinion of Dr Bruce, orthopaedic surgeon dated 5 April 2024.

Dr Bruce had available to him the detailed description of the applicant's work duties provided by her solicitor. The letter to Dr Bruce dated 1 March 2024 is in evidence before the Commission. Dr Bruce took a history that the applicant first became aware of back pain in 2015 associated with wearing the appointments belt and that the low back pain progressed to where it became constant. Dr Bruce diagnosed the applicant with degenerative lumbar spondylosis as a result of her work duties. In a supplementary report of 16 June 2025

Dr Bruce opined that the applicant's "work duties and multiple physical incidents have caused all of aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation and deterioration of the degenerative disease in her lumbar spine". 9. The respondent conceded that general policing duties are arduous in nature and likely to cause stresses and strains to various different body parts however the extent to which the applicant was involved in general duties policing was speculative. 10. The respondent submitted that the applicant must establish that there is a causal connection between the nature and conditions of her employment and the back complaints which were made several years later. The respondent referred to Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452 with respect to the appropriate test for causation. 11. The respondent submitted that while general duties policing is likely to cause or aggravate lumbar problems it may not be the only cause. The respondent submitted that there is no precise evidence from the applicant as to the nature of the work that she was doing in the police other than in her statement referring to defensive tactics training exercises. 12. The respondent referred to the applicant's statement evidence setting out in detail the defensive tactics training she underwent and the circumstances in which she came to report her back complaints following investigations by her solicitor. The respondent submitted that while it may be understandable that as you age and you get pains in your back you may not report these as an injury while you can keep working, it was not an explanation as to why the back complaints were not immediately reported when the applicant ceased work. 13. In submissions, the respondent set out the applicant's employment history with the respondent as follows:

(a) the applicant commenced work as a police officer in 2005 and spent three years in general duties;

(b) two years as a youth liaison officer;

(c) four years as a youth officer with Police Citizens Youth Club (PCYC);

(d) one year of maternity leave;

(e) a further four years with PCYC;

(f) another year of maternity leave;

(g) school liaison officer, and

(h) classified as unfit for work in 2022 but hasn't returned to work since a cardiac event in 2021.

1. The respondent submits there is a significant gap between ceasing work in 2021 and the first reports of back pain in 2023 and that there is no evidence that the applicant has been involved in the type of policing work that would give rise to back complaints since 2021 and possibly earlier given the nature of the policing work she was undertaking.
2. The respondent referred to the applicant's attendance on Dr Husain on 1 September 2023 where she first made complaints with respect to her back. The respondent also referred me to the applicant's first attendance on Dr Husain on 14 July 2021 which was described as a "long consults +++, now in the practice" and that if backpain was of a concern then, it was the type of issue that would have been raised in this initial consultation.
3. It is evident however from the note of 14 July 2021 that the consult occurred less than a month after the applicant's cardiac event on 18 June 2021 and it was the ongoing management of this issue which was unsurprisingly the focus of the extended appointment.
4. I accept that there were further attendances on Dr Husain between 18 June 2021 and September 2023 when back pain was first mentioned by the applicant.
5. It is clear that the applicant ceased work in June 2021 on the background of a cardiac event. It was most appropriate that this would be the focus of the attention of her treatment providers. On the applicant's evidence she had been dealing with back pain since 2015. It was not a new injury or symptom but something the applicant had continued to live with. I don't accept the lack of reporting between 2021 and 2023 supports a contention that was no injury nor that is wasn't ongoing, it was merely something that the applicant had come to live with, which on her evidence, she had accepted was part of getting older.
6. It would appear from the records of Dr Husain from September 2023 that the back complaints were investigated due to advice received in relation to her workers compensation entitlements. This may be so but it does not support the respondent's contention that lack of earlier reporting of back symptoms mean they do not relate to her employment with the respondent which the respondent has conceded in submissions was likely to cause or aggravate lumbar symptoms.
7. The respondent obtained an opinion from Dr Rowe, orthopaedic surgeon, dated

5 August 2024. Dr Rowe took a history that her whole back from the neck to the tail had been aching intermittently for many years, that there was no history of any specific accident or injury and that the backache was of spontaneous onset. He noted that a CT scan of the lumbosacral spine indicated no abnormality. 8. Dr Rowe then concluded:

"It is my assessment that in regard to [the applicant's] spine, her spinal symptoms are a reflection of her psychological state. She is under considerable stress and pressure especially with the more recent breakdown of her marriage and having to care for her two young children and pay the mortgage...

There is no evidence to relate her spinal symptoms to any physical injury of activity during the course of her employment in the police force.

As indicated above, it is my opinion that there is no spinal injury or disability as a result of musculoskeletal problems. I accept that Ms Wilkinson's symptoms are genuine but they are arising from her psychological distress."

1. I have placed only limited weight on the opinion expressed by Dr Rowe for the following reasons. Firstly it is not clear to what degree Dr Rowe was aware of the nature of the applicant's duties including tactical defence training and the wearing of the appointments belt. The employment history set out in his report is limited. It is not evident that he has considered how these activities, undertaken to varying degrees since 2005, may have contributed to the symptoms in the applicant's lumbar spine. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, the reasoning employed by Dr Rowe is internally inconsistent in that he takes a history of pain in the lumbar spine "for many years" and yet attributes it to her current mental state and recent additional life stressors. Accepting the history taken by Dr Rowe that the onset of pain was many years ago (which is consistent with the evidence of the applicant) then it cannot be that it results from her current life stressors such as the breakdown of her marriage and caring for her young children.
2. Having found Dr Rowe's opinion does not assist for the reasons above, and having regard to the evidence of the applicant as to the nature of her duties, the age at which she commenced employment with the respondent and the length of that employment, the evidence of

Dr Bruce and the absence of evidence of any other activities which may have caused the condition in her lumbar spine, I am satisfied the applicant's employment with the respondent including general duties policing, tactical defence training and the wearing of the appointments belt, was the main contributing factor to an aggravation of the degenerative condition in the applicant's lumbar spine.

1. For the reasons set out above, the Commission finds that the applicant sustained an injury to her lumbar spine with a deemed date of injury of 15 April 2024 and makes the orders set out in the attached Certificate of Determination.