Pipe v Victorian WorkCover Authority [2026] VCC 174

1. The defendant, the Victorian Workcover Authority ("VWA"), conceded that Mr Pipe sustained a compensable injury in the incident.
2. It identified the following areas of dispute:
   • The nature and extent of injury
   • Pecuniary loss
   • Range.

1. Mr Pipe is now aged twenty-seven. He lives with his mother and her partner.
2. He completed schooling to Year 10. He commenced with the employer as an apprentice carpenter. He completed his apprenticeship in 2018.

1. I have considered all the tendered evidence, Mr Pipe's oral evidence, and the submissions of counsel, but I shall refer to materials only to the extent necessary in these reasons.
2. For the reasons set out below, I find Mr Pipe has not established that the impairment consequences of his spinal condition meet the "serious injury" threshold and therefore the application fails.

1. Mr Pipe tendered three Affidavits and Affidavits from his brother, his current employer, and his mother, as well as radiology reports, extracts of clinical notes, medical reports from treating practitioners, medico-legal reports, a vocational assessment report, an Independent Contractor contract and emails regarding a job application.
2. The VWA tendered medico-legal reports, a vocational assessment report and a photograph from Mr Pipe's Facebook page.
3. Mr Pipe was the only witness called.

1. After the incident, Mr Pipe lay down for a few hours and then drove himself home. He did not attend a hospital or a doctor. He attended a chiropractor the day after the incident. He took two days off work. He continued to work with the employer until February 2021.
2. In February 2021, he left Melbourne and went to Far North Queensland, where he travelled a bit. He did some carpentry work as a sub-contractor.[2]
3. He returned to Melbourne in early 2022 and worked as a sub-contractor with Lab Carpentry for approximately one-and-a-half years. He struggled to cope with full-time hours and worked "on and off", before deciding to cease carpentry work due to low back pain.
4. In 2023, he commenced truck driving. He worked nightshifts and usually worked 20 to 30 hours per week, depending on the availability of work. He resigned from this role in approximately October/November 2024.
5. He applied for more than one hundred jobs at the start of 2025. He attended an interview for the role of a meter reader job with a company called Service Stream and was told he had been successful. Prior to the scheduled start date, he received an email to say the position would not be suitable for him due to his back injury.[3]
6. In mid-2025, he started supervising and estimating work. He said the work suited him as he could avoid bending, twisting, and lifting more than 15 kilograms.
7. He worked for an unidentified employer for a short period. In July 2025, he obtained work on a construction site in Prahran. He was engaged as an Independent Contractor with a company called Billinudgel Pty Ltd, trading as Sól Saunas. He has been involved in the fit-out and completion of the wellness centre. He obtained this job through a friend, Mr Jamie McAvinue.[4]
8. The Independent Contractor agreement with Billinudgel Pty Ltd referred to Mr Pipe's physical limitations and recorded that he could not lift more than 20 kilograms and should avoid unnecessary bending and twisting.[5] Mr Pipe's rates were $35 an hour, payable weekly upon invoice.
9. At the time of the hearing, Mr Pipe remained employed by Billinudgel Pty Ltd, working approximately 20 to 30 hours per week.

1. Mr Pipe attended a chiropractor on 1 March 2019. He initially attended on a weekly basis and then fortnightly. His chiropractor ceased business in February 2023.
2. Mr Pipe had no further chiropractic treatment until early 2025. At the time of the hearing, he said he was attending the chiropractor approximately once a week.
3. Mr Pipe first attended a General Practitioner ("GP") about the incident on 12 October 2019 - some seven months after the incident. It is unclear how frequently he has attended a GP.
4. He took an anti-inflammatory (Mobic) for a few months in early 2025. He now takes anti-inflammatories every few days. He intermittently takes a muscle relaxant (Norflex) for pain. He does not want to be dependent on medication. He uses a heat pack daily for the pain.

(a) Constant but variable back pain, worse with movement such as bending, stooping and pushing, with flare-ups once a week requiring anti-inflammatory medication;

(b) Inability to fully enjoy or return to hobbies including skateboarding, snowboarding, soccer, swimming and hiking;

(c) Inability to walk his dog and throw the dog's ball;

(d) Difficulty with heavier cleaning and household duties such as lawn and yard work, mopping, vacuuming, and carrying heavier groceries;

(e) Disrupted sleep and feelings of stiffness and soreness upon waking;

(f) Impacted intimacy; and

(g) Inability to return to carpentry work which he loved and planned to do until retirement age.

1. Mr Pipe initially said he used to go to the snow every second weekend in winter. He said he had not been able to "do snowboarding" since his injury. In his second Affidavit, he said he travelled to Japan in February 2020 and tried to snowboard once but was unable to continue due to back pain.
2. He had a membership at a swimming pool and tried to continue swimming after the injury but gave it up due to his severe back pain. Later, he returned to swimming on average three times a week and it felt good to move his body, but he was a lot slower than he used to be.
3. Mr Pipe said he had travelled to Thailand in 2023 and went on a small hike with a group which he coped with as it was a light, half-day walk. He struggled with back pain on the flights to and from Thailand. He accepted that it was a relaxing holiday and helpful for the stress and difficulties he was experiencing at the time.

1. Mr Pipe was cross-examined on three main topics:

1. The VWA tendered a photograph from Mr Pipe's Facebook page dated 11 February 2020, which showed Mr Pipe and a friend standing in the snow in Japan holding snowboards and dressed in snowboarding gear including a helmet and goggles.
2. Mr Pipe said he had attempted snowboarding twice since the injury - once in 2019, about eight months after the injury, and once in February 2020 in Japan.
3. When asked why he did not mention this in his first Affidavit, he said he might have mixed up his timeline.

1. Mr Pipe said he had developed an interest in scuba diving and snorkelling in July 2024. He has completed a diving qualification which included theoretical sessions and physical sessions.
2. He agreed that in order to scuba dive, he would wear a "pretty heavy" air tank on his back and a weight belt. He said he intended to scuba dive and snorkel more when he moved to Queensland and intended to undertake these activities as much as he wanted.
3. He had previously snorkelled in Victoria but said that the water was too cold in Victoria for scuba diving or snorkelling.
4. Mr Pipe snorkelled on his six-week Thailand holiday in 2023. He also went to Thailand in 2024 for ten days. On that holiday, he went scuba diving twice and snorkelled once.
5. Mr Pipe said that scuba diving and snorkelling had not been disclosed in his Affidavits because the Affidavits were "more to relate to something that had already been said than bringing up new things".[6] He ultimately conceded he should have included these matters in his Affidavits.

Post-injury work and current/future work capacity

1. Mr Pipe was on light duties with the employer for about six months. He agreed that he was back to full normal pre-accident duties by August 2019 and that his duties included handling items which weighed between 30 kilograms (two people lifting and loading) and 100 kilograms (four people - lifting windows - one person on each corner). He continued working pre-accident duties and hours until February 2021, when he moved to Queensland.
2. Mr Pipe said that despite working until 2021, he was restricted in bending, lifting and twisting. In re-examination, he said that his injury flared up with inflammation.
3. In Queensland in 2021, Mr Pipe worked as a casual carpenter for nine months. His hours varied. He agreed he would have done full-time work if it were available.
4. In March 2023, he started a nightshift job at Traffika. By May 2024, he was averaging 30 to 35 hours work per week. He was doing well with the job until October 2024. He said there were two reasons behind his decision to leave this job. One was mental health and the other was his back.
5. In re-examination, he said that working on nightshift was hard as he was not nocturnal. He said that repetitive sitting down was difficult.
6. From May to June 2025, Mr Pipe worked for Wild Design Landscape, undertaking supervisory and carpentry work. Mr Pipe said this job suited him as he worked with his restrictions and did not lift more than 15 kilograms, and avoided bending and twisting.
7. In his current job, he has someone to help him with lifting. He agreed this was a safe work practice. Mr Pipe took all the work which was offered to him. Mr Pipe said he would not be able to work full time in this job.
8. Mr Pipe has been applying for full-time work and would attempt it if he were offered a full-time role. He said if he were offered a job in a timberyard or as a meter reader, he would attempt it. He has considered fire detection technician roles, and work as a tester and tagger. He said he would consider positions such as a crane operator but would need further qualifications to do such a job.
9. Mr Pipe said that his Affidavit evidence, when he stated "I can't do heavier things like lawn," was inaccurate. He conceded that it was more accurate to say that he avoided doing yard work or pushing or pulling motions.
10. He agreed that with a lot of schooling and qualifications, he could be a builder.
11. Prior to his injury, Mr Pipe said he had planned to continue with the framing work he was doing and run a role similar to his boss at the time, get apprentices and open up a framing company.[7]
12. Keeping his carpentry hours below 30 hours a week, over four, maybe five days a week, was his capacity.

1. No lay witness was required for cross-examination. Their evidence was generally supportive of Mr Pipe.

1. Mr Matthew Pipe ("Matthew") is Mr Pipe's younger brother. Matthew is twenty-three years old. He qualified as a carpenter in 2023 and is currently employed on commercial building sites. He said he regularly worked overtime and that the pay was good and reliable.
2. In the financial year ending 30 June 2025, Matthew's gross earnings were $150,423 which were made up of a base rate of $99,093.85 and overtime of $43,438.90, as well as paid leave of $7,890.
3. Mr Pipe spoke to his brother about his intention to find union work and to work in commercial carpentry. Matthew said there was no reason why his brother would not be able to work in the same role and earning a similar wage.

1. In approximately July 2025, Mr Pipe was engaged by Billinudgel Pty Ltd, trading as Sól Saunas, to carry out estimating and supervising work.
2. Mr McAvinue said he was aware of Mr Pipe's back injury and structured the role so that it would be within Mr Pipe's limitations. The working crew were aware of Mr Pipe's injury and he always had someone to assist with heavy lifting.
3. Mr McAvinue said the work on the site was nearing completion and he expected the job to be completed by the end of 2025.

1. Ms Thompson is Mr Pipe's mother. Mr Pipe was living with Ms Thompson at the time of the incident and she recalled that he often complained of worsening back pain whilst working for the employer.
2. She said he moved to Queensland around the time of the COVID-19 pandemic as he wanted to be away from the restrictions and wanted to be in warmer weather to help with his pain.[8]
3. Ms Thompson said Mr Pipe was very active before the injury and seemed really happy with his job. She said since stopping work as a carpenter, he seemed lost and spent more time at home.

1. An x-ray of the thoracolumbar spine and pelvis dated 4 March 2019 commissioned by the chiropractor was reported to reveal no fracture or focal bone lesion.
2. An MRI scan of the thoracolumbar spine dated 13 December 2024[9] was reported to show chronic minor T7 superior endplate depression and mild anterior T8 vertebral body wedging.[10]
3. A CT scan of the thoracolumbar spine conducted on 13 December 2024[11] was reported to show very mild scoliosis and kyphosis of the dorsal spine, endplate irregularities from T6 to T10 and a very mild wedge deformity of T8. The radiologist commented: "Although these changes may be secondary to previous trauma, the possibility this represents Scheuermann's disease must be considered."

1. Dr Rahman provided a report dated 7 November 2025.[12] Dr Rahman diagnosed "chronic mid-back pain secondary to T5 and T7 vertebral compression fractures" resulting from the incident. He said there were no pre-existing conditions or pre-disposing factors.
2. Mr Pipe had been treated with pain-relief medication, pain management from Dr Chia and chiropractic treatment.
3. The prognosis was "guarded" due to the nature of the injury and duration of symptoms. There had been promising progress with improvement of symptoms.
4. Mr Pipe's ability to work had been affected. This was likely to continue into the future. There would be difficulty returning to carpentry work. Work with limited physical exertion would be more suitable. However, due to the ongoing occasional discomfort, Mr Pipe's ability to maintain sustained employment may be affected.
5. Mr Pipe would benefit from vocational training and rehabilitation to assist with re-employment.
6. There were no records of clinical examinations or findings in Dr Rahman's report.

Dr Angela Chia, Treating Specialist Anaesthetist and Pain Medicine Physician

1. Dr Chia provided reports dated 17 December 2024, 5 March 2025 and 3 June 2025.[13] Dr Chia saw Mr Pipe upon referral from Dr Rahman.
2. In her first report, Dr Chia said there was a presumptive diagnosis of "vertebral # at T 5 and 7? His most recent MRI spine showed wedge # on T8 with 10% loss of height and some irregularity from T5-8, possibly old # healing or Shermanns' (sic) disease."
3. In her next report, Dr Chia diagnosed a "wedge fracture" at T11 which she said was confirmed on imaging.
4. Dr Chia was told that Mr Pipe had attended chiropractic adjustment treatment/physiotherapy treatment for five years without much improvement.
5. Mr Pipe was reluctant to participate in a pain management program (PMP) as he was not sure how he would go with reading and learning. He was not taking regular pain medications and said he was best assisted by regular chiropractic treatment, swimming a few times a week and occasional self-guided yoga. He expressed a preference for non-pharmacological management.
6. In her first report, Dr Chia confirmed she prescribed Norflex, 100 milligrams, as a muscle relaxant to assist with morning stiffness.
7. In her second report, she prescribed daily Mobic for up to three months. She recommended that Mr Pipe continue with self-management techniques and chiropractic treatment.
8. In her final report, Dr Chia said Mobic had resulted in a 30 to 40 per cent reduction in pain, with no side effects. She prescribed Mobic for a further month. There was no need for a PMP.
9. No records of clinical examinations or findings were in any of Dr Chia's reports.
10. Dr Chia did not provide an opinion regarding work capacity or prognosis.

1. Mr Grossbard examined Mr Pipe on 1 October 2024 and wrote a report of the same date.[14]
2. Mr Pipe complained of variable constant pain in his mid-thoracic region which had a base level of 3/10 but could increase to 6 or 7/10 following activity. He also complained of low-back pain which was present when sitting for longer periods.
3. Upon clinical examination, Mr Grossbard found tenderness to palpation at the T7 level and lower lumbar area, reduced thoracolumbar and lumbar flexion. There was increased pain, particularly with extension of the spine. Lateral flexion was mildly dysmetric, greater to the left than the right, as was rotation. There was 2‑centimetre of quadriceps wasting on the left side.[15] Reflex, power and sensation in the lower limbs and muscle tone were all normal.
4. Mr Grossbard referred to a number of x-rays. He said an x-ray of the lumbosacral spine was normal. He suggested that, based on his measurements on an x-ray of the thoracolumbar spine, there was minor wedge compression with 30 per cent loss of height at the T7 level and 25 per cent loss of height at the T5 level.[16]
5. Mr Grossbard said there were two thoracolumbar fractures but did not say which level of the thoracic spine was involved.
6. Mr Grossbard said the fractures were caused by the incident and resulted in thoracolumbar pain with associated reduced motion and dysmetria. He also diagnosed a soft-tissue injury to the lumbar spine which was causing separate issues.
7. Mr Grossbard considered Mr Pipe could not return to carpentry work but could undertake full-time modified restricted duties where bending and lifting were not required.

1. Dr Akil examined Mr Pipe on 12 January 2024 and 25 November 2024.[17]
2. Dr Akil diagnosed compression fractures at T7 and T5 due to the incident and aggravation of lumbar spondylosis. Dr Akil said that the injury was "quite unusual in a way with late diagnosis".
3. Dr Akil said a previous trampoline injury in 2012 was not contributing to Mr Pipe's current condition.
4. Dr Akil recorded the pain was infrequent but stopped Mr Pipe from doing many things he did with ease previously, including sporting activities. Mr Pipe said he occasionally took anti-inflammatory medication for flare-ups and that his only treatment had been chiropractic sessions and more recently, hydrotherapy.
5. On clinical examination at the first attendance, there was a reasonable range of motion of the cervical and lumbar spine, with a mild degree of muscle guarding affecting the thoracic region.
6. On the second clinical examination, there was mild tenderness on palpation of the paraspinal muscles in the thoracolumbar region, good range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine in all directions and no motor or sensory deficit affecting the lower limbs.
7. Dr Akil considered the prognosis was guarded.
8. Dr Akil considered that Mr Pipe could not return to his pre-injury work due to the physical activities involved.
9. At the time of the first examination, Dr Akil recorded Mr Pipe was working full-time work as a truck driver without any issue. Dr Akil concluded that this work was suitable.
10. At the time of the second examination, Mr Pipe reported he had ceased truck driving due to mental health issues. Dr Akil said Mr Pipe's ability to perform physically demanding work was affected. Dr Akil recommended restrictions on lifting, pushing, pulling and overhead activities.

1. Dr Slesenger prepared three reports, dated 19 November 2024, 12 August 2025 and 7 November 2025.[18] He examined Mr Pipe on 11 November 2024 and 12 August 2025. His third report was prepared on the papers.
2. At the first examination, Mr Pipe said he had ceased chiropractic treatment as his chiropractor had stopped practising. He was not taking medication and was self-managing with a hydrotherapy and yoga program. He complained of moderate residual low-back pain which could occasionally become severe. He estimated his pain to be 5-6/10, increasing to 7-8/10 with activity.
3. At the second examination, he said his symptoms were much the same, with persisting low-back pain at a level of 6-7/10, radiating into his mid back, and pain increasing up to 8/10 with activity.
4. Mr Pipe said he had seen a pain specialist, and had re-engaged in weekly physical therapy, attending an osteopath, who provided an exercise program. He had been considered a candidate for a PMP but said he was told by his specialist that a PMP was not necessary. He was no longer under the care of a pain specialist.
5. Mr Pipe confirmed he had returned to work as a site supervisor and estimator. His duties involved attending small construction projects, usually residential, monitoring trainees on site, managing the flow of parts and supplies and performing estimates of job tasks to be completed. He said the role did not involve any manual handling. He walked through the site and had to go up and down stairs and ladders. He was working six hours a day, three to four days a week. He said he had been attending work reliably but thought that any more hours might aggravate his symptoms.
6. When conducting a clinical examination in November 2024, Dr Slesenger noted tenderness over the lower thoracic spine and lower lumbar spine and the paraspinal musculature.
7. In his first report, Dr Slesenger diagnosed a resolved soft tissue injury to the cervical spine, as well soft tissue injury to the thoracic spine, a T5-7 fracture, and a soft tissue injury to the lumbar spine. He considered the prognosis was guarded.
8. Dr Slesenger noted that treatment had been limited. He said Mr Pipe may benefit from review by a pain specialist. He was optimistic that Mr Pipe's pain and function would improve with intervention but a full resolution was unlikely.
9. On clinical examination in August 2025, Dr Slesenger recorded tenderness throughout the lower thoracic spine, upper lumber spine and paraspinal musculature.
10. Dr Slesenger confirmed his earlier diagnosis. He did not anticipate any significant change in the foreseeable future.
11. Dr Slesenger considered Mr Pipe could not return to pre-injury duties but that he had retained capacity with restrictions including avoiding pushing, pulling, carrying or lifting over 5 kilograms on a repetitive basis and 10 kilograms on an occasional basis, avoiding repetitive bending, prolonged static postures and whole body vibration. With those restrictions in place, Mr Pipe could return to work four hours a day, four days a week, graduating over time to six hours a day, five days a week.
12. At the time of his second report, Mr Pipe was working six hours a day, three to four days a week. Dr Slesenger said this was approaching Mr Pipe's maximum capacity.
13. Dr Slesenger's third report was completed on the papers and related to the CoWork Vocational Assessment & Labour Market Analysis Report dated 18 July 2024. Dr Slesenger said that the roles of Track Inspector and Building Estimator were suitable if the recommended restrictions where followed. A worksite assessment was necessary to determine whether the role of Vocational Education Teacher (Carpentry) was suitable.

1. Associate Professor Romas prepared reports dated 19 June 2023 and 19 October 2023.[19] He examined Mr Pipe on 19 June 2023. Mr Pipe was not re-examined for the second report.
2. Mr Pipe complained of pain in the lower thoracic region, specifically below the T7 area, as well as low-back pain. The low-back pain was the most severe and was consistently present. The pain was dull in nature but sometimes became sharp, particularly after excessive physical activity. He managed the condition with self-directed yoga and walking. He last attended his chiropractor in January 2023 when the business closed.
3. Mr Pipe denied any pre-existing spinal issues, although said that in 2012, he was doing gymnastics and landed on his head. Associate Professor Romas noted this was confirmed in an x-ray of the cervical spine on 24 August 2012.[20]
4. Associate Professor Romas was provided with x-rays of the thoracic and lumbar spine which he said were of limited quality. The x-rays were undated and did not show Mr Pipe's name. He said the x-rays revealed no visible lumbar fractures but showed a T7 crush fracture of greater than 25 per cent and a T5 fracture of less than 25 per cent.[21]
5. Associate Professor Romas said the case was "certainly unusual" and that he had to assume that the x-rays he reviewed belonged to Mr Pipe. Associate Professor Romas said that Mr Pipe had suffered multiple thoracic spine fractures and that, on the balance of probabilities, this was caused by the incident.
6. On this basis, Associate Professor Romas diagnosed thoracic spine dysfunction, low-back dysfunction and non-specific neck pain. He considered these conditions were likely to persist for the foreseeable future.
7. In his second short report dated 19 October 2023, Associate Professor Romas was provided with medical records from Mr Pipe's treating chiropractor which confirmed he attended on 1 March 2019, as well as x-ray photographs revealing the T5 and T7 fractures.[22]
8. Associate Professor Romas said this information reinforced his confidence in his earlier conclusions that the fractures were confined to the thoracic spine and that they were related to employment.
9. Associate Professor Ramos did not comment on work capacity.

1. Dr Tan prepared a report dated 30 November 2024, after examining Mr Pipe. She prepared a supplementary report dated 15 May 2025 on the papers.
2. Mr Pipe complained of pain located on both sides of his lower thoracic spine and both sides of his mid-lumbar spine. The mid-lumbar pain did not radiate into his buttocks or down to the lower limbs. The thoracic pain ranged between 4-6/10 and the lumbar spinal pain ranges from 3-5/10. He felt uncomfortable after sitting or standing for 30 to 60 minutes. Recumbency gave him initial relief.
3. Mr Pipe said he performed domestic chores except for sweeping, mopping and vacuuming.
4. According to Dr Tan, Mr Pipe was not aware that he had sustained a spiral fracture until November 2024, when he discovered this in the context of the impairment assessment process.
5. On clinical examination, Mr Pipe had a completely normal gait, he stood erect with no spinal deformity, he was able to walk on heels and on tiptoes, and was able to execute a deep squat and stand up again with almost no perceptible difficulty. Forward flexion of the lumbar spine was mildly reduced. He was able to reach to the lower one quarter of his shins. Lateral flexion, lateral rotation and extension of the lumbar spine was normal, as was limb tone and power and sensation to light touch. The straight leg raise test was negative. Deep tendon reflexes were symmetrical. His plantar responses were flexor. There was minimal tenderness on palpation over the lower thoracic and lumbar spine.
6. Dr Tan said that psychological and social factors were likely contributing to his presentation, although she did not identify any specific factors.
7. Dr Tan said that Mr Pipe could have suffered an axial load on his spine which could lead to a vertebral compression fracture, typically in the lower thoracic or upper lumbar spine in the incident.
8. However, in her view, Mr Pipe's symptoms were non-specific and non-radicular and did not suggest such a diagnosis.
9. Dr Tan said that there were no concerning findings on clinical examination. In particular, Mr Pipe had a much better range of movement than Dr Tan would have expected, based on his complaints.
10. After reviewing radiology which included thoracic spine x-ray images dated 4 March 2019 (consisting of two images of the AP thoracic and lumbosacral spine, one of the lateral thoracic spine and one of the lateral lumbosacral spine), and plain thoracic and lumbar x-rays dated 9 August 2011[23] and CT and MRI studies dated 13 December 2024, Dr Tan said that normal thoracic vertebra can be slightly wedge-shaped. It was her opinion that the images did not show any obvious fracture.
11. Dr Tan said, based on the radiology, she was unable to find evidence that Mr Pipe sustained compression fractures in his thoracic or lumbar spine. She said that if Mr Pipe did sustain a compression fracture, it would have been a minor fracture.
12. It was Dr Tan's opinion that Schuermann's Disease was an alternative explanation for any mild vertebral wedging observed on the spinal imaging. A diagnosis of muscular or facetogenic pain were not excluded but seemed unlikely, based on the characteristics of his pain.
13. Dr Tan said that although Mr Pipe's description of the mechanics of the incident provided a plausible mechanism for a crush or compression fracture, based on the radiology, it seemed unlikely that he sustained any compression fracture or at least only a minor compression fracture.
14. Dr Tan had reservations about Mr Pipe's capacity and fitness to undertake pre-injury carpentry work because he said he had limited tolerances for standing and walking. She said the basis for such tolerances was not explicable. It was her view that there was no evidence that they were a direct result of work-related injury.
15. Commenting specifically on the CoWork roles, Dr Tan said Mr Pipe had physical capacity for the roles of Road Traffic Controller, Track Inspector, Building Estimator, Building Inspector and Vocational Education Teacher.

Dr Majid Rahgozar, Consultant Occupational Physician

1. Dr Rahgozar prepared a report dated 14 April 2025, having examined Mr Pipe on 11 April 2025.
2. Mr Pipe said at rest and while seated, he did not have pain. He tended to have more pain and difficulty upon bending and twisting on a cold day and improvement of his pain upon application of heat.
3. On clinical examination, Dr Rahgozar found Mr Pipe walked normally, there was no deformity of the cervical, thoracolumbar spine, shoulder girdle and upper limb, pelvic girdle and lower limb. Range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine was normal. Mr Pipe did not report tenderness on palpation of spinous processes or paraspinous regions of the thoracolumbar spine. He could unilaterally weight bear, stand on his tiptoes and on his heels and make a full squat. Neurological examination was normal. Straight leg raise test was negative. FABER test was negative for hip and sacroiliac joint pathology.
4. Dr Rahgozar considered that an MRI scan of 2023[24] showed Scheuermann's disease - a condition that he said affects the spines of adolescent and young adults, with imaging that can be indistinguishable from minor vertebral changes.
5. Dr Rahgozar said the MRI scan of December 2024 also showed evidence of Scheuermann's disease, as well as minor irregularities of T7 and T8.
6. Given these radiological findings, Dr Rahgozar said it was likely Mr Pipe had some degenerative changes of the thoracolumbar spine prior to February 2019.
7. Dr Rahgozar said that given Mr Pipe had returned to work a week later, undertaking heavy physical work for several months and was able to travel overseas and engage in snowboarding, it was unlikely that he sustained a significant fracture of the spine in February 2019 and the findings of the imaging showing irregularities of T7 and T8 were more likely to be pre-existing.
8. Dr Rahgozar said that it was possible Mr Pipe had sustained musculoligamentous injuries to the spine in the incident, but it was not likely that he sustained a fracture or a major disruption of the spine in the incident. He said this was consistent with the fact that Mr Pipe had modest treatment in the form of simple analgesics and physical therapies and he had been able to engage with heavy physical work as a carpenter and truck driver.
9. Dr Raghozar said any injury sustained in the incident had resolved. Imaging of the spine showed degenerative changes of the mid-thoracic spine but there was no evidence of structural instability, cord compression, progressive neurological loss or nerve root compression.
10. It was Dr Rahgozar's view that there were psychosocial elements[25] in the presentation which were predictive of long-term pain and disability of a non-specific nature.
11. Dr Rahgozar said Mr Pipe did not have significant incapacity for activities of daily life, leisure and work. He could return to pre-injury work. Dr Rahgozar said Mr Pipe had capacity for suitable work including all the roles proposed in the CoWork report.

Mr Pipe's evidence regarding loss of earnings claim

1. Mr Pipe said he intended to continue working as a carpenter until retirement age. His intention was to upskill and then find union work doing formwork carpentry which paid better. He said if he were still working as a carpenter, he would be earning at least $150,000 per annum.
2. At the time of his second Affidavit, Mr Pipe was working 20 to 30 hours per week (across three to four days), at a rate of $35 per hour. He again said he was working to his maximum capacity and that his current work was likely to become patchy as the project neared completion, and he then hoped to find similar work.
3. Mr Pipe said he could not do any office work, as he finished school at fifteen years of age and was not good on the computer.

1. Ms Oliver prepared vocational reports dated 13 January 2025 and 17 November 2025.[26] She interviewed Mr Pipe before the first report and provided the second report on the papers.
2. After leaving school in Year 10, Mr Pipe completed a Certificate III and IV in Building and Construction, Control Traffic with Stop-Slow Bat & Implement Traffic Management Plan, and he held a White Card, had Dogging Ticket and held Heavy Rigid (HR) Truck and Victorian Driver Licences.
3. Ms Oliver said there were no barriers to learning.
4. Mr Pipe said he had very basic computer skills. Ms Oliver said because of this, Mr Pipe would did not meet the standards expected or required for elementary office or administrative roles.
5. Mr Pipe said he intended to set up his own carpentry company and wanted to live in Queensland.
6. Ms Oliver said Mr Pipe's injury had "greatly limited his ability to perform alternative employment of a parallel nature to an acceptable commercial standard for the foreseeable future".[27]
7. Ms Oliver said that given Mr Pipe's reports of constant pain, it was likely his ability to perform any manual or sedentary work would be impacted, and that the consequences of the pain, which included fatigue and reduced concentration, would also impact his ability to perform consistently and productively, either in a full-time or part-time capacity, regardless of the industry.

VWA's evidence regarding loss of earnings claim

1. The VWA tendered two CoWork reports which consisted of a Vocational Assessment & Labour Market Analysis Report dated 18 July 2024 and a supplementary report dated 27 November 2025. The first report was authored by Holly Ross, an Occupational Therapist, who interviewed Mr Pipe via videoconference on 28 May 2024. The supplementary report was a desktop report authored by Joanne Bryant, an Occupational Therapist, which addressed expected earnings for a residential carpenter in Melbourne.
2. The reports identified the following roles as "suitable employment": Road Traffic Controller; Mower Operator; Crane, Hoist and Lift Operator; Track Inspector; Building Estimator; Building Inspector; Vocational Education Teacher (Carpentry); Residential Carpenter.

1. Mr Pipe's submissions on this point were brief. It was said that he suffered the following injuries:
   • Two wedge compression fractures to the thoracic spine
   • A soft tissue injury to the lumbosacral spine.

1. The VWA accepted that Mr Pipe suffered a compensable injury but disputed that Mr Pipe had suffered fracture(s) to his thoracolumbar spine. The report of the x‑ray of 4 March 2019 stated that there was no fracture or focal bone lesion.
2. The VWA relied on Dr Tan's conclusion that she was unable to find evidence that Mr Pipe sustained a compression fracture of his thoracic or lumbar spine, if he did sustain a compression fracture it could only have been minor, and Dr Tan's opinion that Scheuermann's disease was an alternative explanation for any mild intervertebral wedging observed on imaging.
3. The VWA also relied on the opinion of Dr Rahgozar, who said it was unlikely that Mr Pipe had sustained a significant fracture, and irregularities of the T7 and T9 were likely pre-existing.
4. The VWA said Dr Akil's finding of a compression fracture was unaccompanied by analysis. It was not clear whether Mr Grossbard had seen the actual radiology. Dr Slesenger's opinion was flawed as he was under the misapprehension that Mr Pipe remained on light duties in his pre-injury role for two years after the incident rather than six months.

1. Mr Pipe worked a basic maximum of 30 hours a week, at $35 an hour, which equated to $54,600 per annum based on his contract with Billinudgel Pty Ltd.
2. In the alternative, if the Court found that he had the capacity to work 38 hours per week in his current job, he could earn $69,160 per annum.[28]
3. Regarding his future earning capacity, it had been Mr Pipe's intention to continue working in carpentry and then enter the construction industry, as his younger brother had done. Mr Pipe relied on the figure of $150,000 (including overtime).
4. Alternatively, the appropriate figure was that paid to a Commercial Carpenter provided in the Flexi-Personnel report, of $124, 320, which excluded overtime and meals and additional allowance.
5. Insofar as there was a conflict between Mr Pipe's Affidavit evidence about wanting to enter the construction industry with carpentry, and his later evidence that he wanted to set up a business in residential carpentry, it was said that Mr Pipe "intended to learn as much as possible from his boss".
6. The Court should prefer the Flexi-Personnel figures as they referred to award rates which was the appropriate starting point, in that such rates were the minimum that a worker must be paid.[29]

1. Mr Pipe is capable of full-time work, and full-time work as a carpenter. He had demonstrated a capacity to earn $94,000 per annum and had retained this capacity. Mr Pipe had demonstrated his capacity in resuming to work full time for the employer. He had demonstrated his capacity to work full time while working for Lab Carpentry in Queensland as he agreed that he would have worked full time if it were offered. He worked full time work for Traffika.
2. Mr Pipe had always intended to move to Queensland for carpentry work, notwithstanding his injury.
3. In relation to Mr Pipe's evidence in re-examination that, prior to the injury, he had been intending on running a role similar to his boss at the time, and get apprentices and open up a framing company, the VWA relied on paragraphs 13-15 of Margriplis-Hampton v Spendwatt Pty Ltd[30] where it was found there was insufficient evidence before the Court to assess his earning capacity on a common law basis working for himself as a subcontractor electrician, taking into account operating expenses and so on. The VWA submitted Mr Pipe's was a similar case and there was no evidence as to what he would have earned from that type of work. Mr Pipe's brother's Affidavit was of no relevance here.
4. In terms of alternative roles - the figures in the CoWork reports should be preferred over those in the Flexi Personnel reports. The CoWork figures were real figures, derived from jobs market research, whereas the Flexi Personnel figures were understated as they were based on base rates contained in award rates and excluded penalties and allowances.

1. Mr Pipe said he had problems with sitting when working as a truck driver with Traffika (which he mentioned to Dr Slesenger and Mr Grossbard) and this was an impairment consequence.
2. Mr Pipe conceded he did not cease working at Traffika solely because of the issues with back pain, his back was starting to cause him trouble, and he was looking to do something else. He accepted that mental health issues at the time "stopped (him) anyway".
3. Mr Pipe relied upon the impairment consequences on his sleep which were unchallenged, giving up skateboarding and restrictions on snowboarding as well as his loss of career as a carpenter.[31]
4. Mr Pipe accepted there was no material from the chiropractor but said that the VWA did not challenge him about his treatment regime.
5. Counsel for Mr Pipe accepted that Mr Pipe was somewhat unreliable, but he made appropriate concessions in cross-examination. Mr Pipe should have mentioned the snowboarding and snorkelling but asserted that that snorkelling was undertaken occasionally.

1. As stated earlier, the VWA disputed that Mr Pipe had suffered fracture(s) to his thoracolumbar spine but said that regardless of the nature of the injury, the impairment consequences were "serious".
2. Mr Pipe had not been forthcoming about his pain and suffering consequences and was an unreliable witness. The VWA pointed to the following examples:

(a) Mr Pipe told Dr Akil that he had intermittent episodes and infrequent pain, which contrasted Mr Pipe's Affidavit evidence that he had constant pain. (Mr Pipe said in cross-examination that he could not recall saying this to Dr Akil);

(b) Mr Pipe had denied he had been snowboarding since the injury in his first Affidavit. In his second Affidavit, he had disclosed the attempts to snowboard on his Japan trip in February 2020. In cross-examination, it had transpired that Mr Pipe had also attempted snowboarding in late 2019;

(c) Scuba diving and snorkelling were not mentioned in Mr Pipe's Affidavits. Dr Slesenger was told in September 2025 that there had been no return to recreational pursuits;

(d) Lawn and yard work - there was a contrast between Mr Pipe's Affidavit evidence that he could not do these activities, and his oral evidence;

(e) Mr Pipe had not disclosed in his Affidavits he had been on a weekend road trip down the Great Ocean Road approximately two years ago.

1. Mr Pipe's treatment regime did not strongly support that his condition was "serious". There was a two-year gap in Mr Pipe's chiropractic treatment between February 2023 and early 2025.
2. Mr Pipe had retained a capacity to engage in carpentry work and to travel overseas and interstate on multiple occasions.

1. It is clear that a plaintiff's reliability is relevant, not only to the question of whether his evidence should be accepted: It is also relevant to the reliability of the medical evidence presented, because the opinions of doctors are essentially dependent on the reliability of the history given to them by a plaintiff.
2. It was not my impression that Mr Pipe was deliberately lying about any of the matters covered in his evidence.
3. However, I have had considerable doubt about the reliability of some of what he says. I find that Mr Pipe was an unreliable witness. The following aspects of his evidence were unsatisfactory:

(a) his descriptions of the level and intensity of his pain varied from intermittent episodes and infrequent pain to constant pain;

(b) his failure to disclose the extent of his travels;

(c) his denial in his first Affidavit that he had been snowboarding since the injury, compared to the disclosure in his second Affidavit that he had snowboarded on his Japan trip in February 2020 and the further admissions regarding snowboarding in cross-examination;

(d) his failure to disclose scuba diving and snorkelling in his Affidavits;

(e) his assertion in his Affidavit that he could not do lawn and yard work compared to his oral evidence that he could do these activities.

1. I find Mr Pipe was somewhat injury focussed and had a tendency to overstate the extent of his pain and restrictions.
2. I find Mr Pipe has reconstructed his thinking about the timing and extent of his symptoms and their impact on his life. It is now almost seven years since he suffered the injuries the subject of this application. The passage of time has interfered with the reliability of his recall of relevant details over the intervening period. The reliability of his description of the extent of pain and interference with work and daily living activities is questionable. I have therefore looked for other evidence to evaluate the extent of his symptoms and their impact on his life.

1. There is no doubt that the incident itself was dramatic and would have been very frightening for Mr Pipe.
2. In order to determine what injuries were sustained in the incident , the Court would have been assisted by some oral medical evidence. However, given the way in which these applications proceed, the Court has not had the opportunity to hear from any of the medical practitioners involved.

1. Dr Rahman, Mr Grossbard, Dr Akil, Dr Slesenger and Associate Professor Romas appear to have relied heavily on the radiology and said that the radiology showed compression fractures at T5 and T7.
2. Dr Rahman did not refer to the radiology at all. He did not say whether he formed his opinion after viewing the actual radiological scans or whether he relied on the radiology reports.
3. Mr Grossbard referred to x-rays which he said confirmed a minor wedge compression at T7 and, to a lesser extent, at T5. No such x-rays have been produced to the Court. Mr Grossbard could not have been referring to the MRI scan of December 2024 or the CT scan of December 2024 as they post dated his report.
4. Dr Akil, neurosurgeon, in his report of 1 January 2024, says that he examined x‑rays which showed a compression fracture in one of the thoracic vertebrae. No such x-ray has been tendered. Dr Akil said he was unable to determine the exact loss of height in the compression fracture but referred to Mr Grossbard's report, which mentioned there was a T7 fracture and a T5 compression fracture. Dr Akil did not identify the basis upon which he determined the compression fractures at T5 and T7. Dr Akil did not address the question of Scheuermann's disease.
5. Dr Slesenger was not provided with any post-incident x-rays. In his second report, he referred to the reports of the MRI and CT scans of December 2024. He did not view any radiology.
6. Associate Professor Romas viewed x-ray images from the chiropractor's file. They were undated. There was a reference to a T7 crush fracture and a T5 fracture. These x-rays have not been tendered to the Court.
7. Dr Chia initially said that the December 2024 scans showed a wedge fracture on T8, with a 10 per cent loss of height and some irregularity at T5-8 possibly representing old fracture healing or Scheuermann's disease. In March 2025, Dr Chia said that there was a wedge fracture at T11, which she said was confirmed on "recent imaging". No such imaging has been produced to the Court. Dr Chia does not explain why she changed her opinion or how she formed the view that T11 was involved.
8. The findings on clinical examination of the thoracic spine by Mr Grossbard, Dr Akil, Dr Slesenger and Associate Professor Romas were essentially normal with subjective complaints of tenderness made by Mr Pipe.
9. Dr Tan, a neurosurgeon, said it was unlikely that a compression fracture was sustained and that the radiology was consistent with Scheuermann's disease.
10. The MRI and CT scans performed of December 2024 were undertaken at Dr Tan's request and were not commissioned for treatment purposes.
11. Dr Raghozar said the radiology showed degenerative changes with no evidence of structural instability.
12. It is important that the relevance of radiology is not overstated. As Chernov JA said in Dordev v Cowan & Ors,[32] the fact that there is pathology (in this case radiology), does not, of itself, establish consequences of any particular degree of gravity or a specific source.
13. Mr Pipe's medical evidence as to whether thoracic spinal fractures were sustained in the incident was confusing.
14. I prefer the evidence of Dr Tan on this point. She is eminently qualified to express such views. Her reasoning was clear and compelling.
15. After considering the evidence as a whole, I find that Mr Pipe did not sustain thoracic spinal fractures in the incident.

1. I note that neither Dr Rahman or Dr Chia, the treating doctors, diagnosed a soft tissue injury to the spine.
2. Associate Professor Romas diagnosed low-back dysfunction with no radiculopathy. In June 2023, he said that the mechanism of the fall was sufficient to cause a soft tissue injury to the lumbar spine. He said flexion and extension of the lumbar spine were excellent and there was an unspecified reduction of right lateral flexion. He noted intermittent muscle spasm on clinical examination. He performed an impairment assessment.
3. Mr Grossbard and Dr Slesenger were of the view that Mr Pipe sustained a soft tissue injury to the lumbosacral spine. Neither explained why a soft tissue injury sustained in 2019 continued to impact Mr Pipe.
4. Given the nature of the incident, I find it likely that Mr Pipe sustained a soft tissue injury to the lumbosacral spine.
5. Taking into account the whole of the evidence, I prefer the evidence of Dr Tan and Dr Raghozar that any musculoligamentous injury/soft tissue injury to the lumbosacral spine has resolved.

1. Mr Pipe's current earnings are unclear as his weekly hours of work fluctuate.
2. I find that Mr Pipe worked on alternative duties for the employer for six months after the incident and then worked full time as a carpenter with the employer for about two years. He then went to Queensland. When he returned to Victoria, he worked for Lab Carpentry for one-and-a-half years as a carpenter.
3. I find that the reason he ceased working with the employer was unrelated to any injury but because he wanted to leave Victoria during the COVID pandemic.
4. Since ceasing work with the employer, Mr Pipe has made a number of lifestyle choices including taking part-time work so that he could travel more.
5. I find that Mr Pipe has the capacity to work as a carpenter and could do so on a full-time basis if he chose to and therefore could earn a similar figure to his brother and other carpenters. I do not accept that he has sustained a 40 per cent loss.
6. I reject the submission that Mr Pipe intended to set up his own business employing apprentices prior to the accident. No contemporaneous evidence was produced to support this assertion. The plan was not mentioned in any of Mr Pipe's Affidavits. It was not mentioned in Matthew Pipe's Affidavit. It does not seem something that a twenty-year-old would be contemplating.
7. If I am wrong about that, there was insufficient financial evidence produced to the Court to enable the Court assess what amounts could have been earned in such an endeavour.
8. Mr Pipe has not established that he has suffered a permanent loss of earning capacity of 40 per cent or more.

1. In this case, Mr Pipe's evidence is of little assistance because it is unreliable.
2. There is very little objective or accurate evidence to support Mr Pipe's application. It appears that the radiology tendered to the Court is incomplete.
3. No material has been put before the Court from any of Mr Pipe's treating chiropractors or osteopaths, other than a single attendance note from a chiropractor from March 2019.
4. When determining what has been lost as a consequence of injury, the Court may also consider what has been retained.
5. In this case, Mr Pipe has retained:
   • the ability to travel extensively (Queensland on at least three occasions and Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia for six weeks in 2023; Thailand in 2024).
   • The ability to engage in new recreational activities such as snorkelling and scuba diving since the incident - which is, to some extent, inconsistent with complaints of ongoing thoracic and low-back pain and inconsistent with the physical restrictions asserted.
6. Mr Pipe's treatment regime has been modest.
7. I do not accept that Mr Pipe has lost his career as a carpenter. As stated earlier, he has made lifestyle choices which have included the type of work he performs and the number of hours he works.
8. Considering the whole of the evidence, the Court is not persuaded that the impairment consequences could be described as "more than significant or marked and as being at least very considerable".
9. I conclude that Mr Pipe has failed to establish that he has sustained a serious injury as required by s325 of the Act.

1. The application is dismissed.
2. I will hear from the parties on the question of costs.

[1] Margriplis-Hampton v Spendwatt Pty Ltd [2022] VSCA 15; Woolworths v Jarvis [2012] VCC 1329; State of New South Wales v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536

[2] Mr Pipe's time in Queensland was not mentioned in his first or second Affidavits

[6] Transcript ("T") 28, Line/s ("L") 22-25

[7] Whether this was a realistic plan, given Mr Pipe's age at the time of the incident, was not addressed by either party

[8] There is no reference in Mr Pipe's Affidavits to the warmer weather assisting with his back pain

[9] Commissioned by Dr Tan, neurosurgeon, for medico-legal purposes

[10] It did not reveal any spinal fractures

[15] Mr Grossbard did not say whether this finding had any clinical significance

[16] Presumably he was referring the x-ray dated 4 March 2019 and the MRI scan and CT scan undertaken on 13 December 2024

[25] Which he identified as a past history of alcohol abuse, cannabis abuse, non-evidence-based chiropractic treatment and personal stressors as well as what Mr Pipe perceived as a lack of care and support from the employer

[28] This is contrary to the comments made in the opening of the case, where it was conceded that Mr Pipe could work up to 40 hours per week as an estimator

[29] Rooth v VWA [2020] VCC 2113 (unreported), decision of Judge Coish dated 5 November 2020

[31] Ellis Management Services Pty Ltd v Taylor [2013] VSCA 326

[32] [2006] VSCA 254