10 February 2022. Dr Kuo records that the applicant reported that it was a short time after the fall at work that she started to notice right greater than left shoulder pain. 66. Based on the applicant's history that she was fully functional prior to the work fall and had been debilitated since the accident, Dr Kuo is of the opinion that the applicant's incapacity is a result of the injuries at work and that her employment is a substantial contributing factor to her injuries. 67. On 16 August 2022 Dr Kuo reported to Dr Law recording that the applicant reported that in the fall on 16 February 2019 she hit her back and both shoulders.[65] 68. On 21 October 2022 the applicant was examined by A/Prof Brett Courtenay, orthopaedic surgeon, who provided a forensic report to the respondent dated 25 October 2022.[66] A/Prof Courtenay records that the applicant had problems with her shoulders from the time of the fall at work. The doctor observed that there was some disconnect in the available information as to when the right shoulder symptoms developed. The doctor observed that there was no evidence that the right shoulder was investigated from the time of the fall at work. A/Prof Courtenay was unable to confirm a causal relationship between the right shoulder condition and the fall at work. 69. On 1 December 2022 Dr Kuo reported that the applicant had shoulder symptoms for 8-10 years without any specific history of trauma. The doctor was of the opinion given the applicant's history that she slipped and fell backwards, that it is extremely reasonable to consider that injuries to the spine and shoulders/upper limbs could have occurred. The applicant mentioned to the doctor that her shoulder had become painful as a result of the incident on 16 February 2019. The doctor observed that he had no reason to not believe the applicant and her symptoms are consistent with her mechanism of injury.[67] 70. On 20 December 2022 Dr New provided a further forensic report to the applicant.[68] In the opinion of Dr New, on the balance of probabilities, given that the applicant fell off a chair at work and injured her shoulder, there is a causal connection between employment and the injury. 71. On 6 January 2023 A/Prof Courtenay provided a further report to the respondent following a review of further documents. The doctor had previously assumed that the applicant had fallen forward. Having been provided with a history that the applicant had fallen backwards the doctor concluded that it was even less likely that the applicant had sustained a shoulder injury in the fall as she would not have put her arms behind her when falling to protect herself.[69] 72. On 28 May 2023 Dr Law reported on the applicant noting that the doctor did not have available for review the clinical records prior to November 2021. It was Dr Law's memory that the applicant reported sometime perhaps between June and November 2021 that her right shoulder was still sore from the work fall. Dr Law recalled being surprised by this as the doctor had not realised that the applicant had injured her shoulder during the fall. 73. Dr Law records that the applicant insisted that she had told the doctor, but the doctor had not documented it. However, Dr Law observed that she has always been very thorough at documenting notes especially for worker's compensation cases and she did not recall the applicant reporting right shoulder issues shortly after the fall at work. The doctor recalls that after she told the applicant that, the applicant said she might have gone to another doctor in Plumpton Medical Centre for her shoulder.[70] 74. On 22 August 2023 Dr New provided a further forensic report to the applicant's solicitors.[71] Dr New records that the applicant reported that she did not have any right shoulder symptoms prior to the fall at work. She did however confirm that she had a past history of intermittent bursitis but at the time of the fall she was asymptomatic. 75. In the opinion of Dr New the applicant likely sustained an injury to her right shoulder as a result of the fall at work. In the opinion of Dr New the description of the fall and the subsequent presentation is consistent. 76. On 14 September 2023 Dr Kuo reported to the applicant's solicitors that he felt that it was likely that the right shoulder had become injured as a result of the fall at work observing that the applicant reported that she hit her back and both shoulders in the fall. In the doctor's opinion the fall would explain the injury to the soft tissues, ligament and tendons of the shoulder.[72] 77. On 27 October 2023 Dr Kuo reported that the history which he obtained at his first consultation with the applicant on 7 July 2021 was that she had hit her buttocks, head and shoulders in the fall. Despite the prior history of rotator cuff disease Dr Kuo was of the opinion that the fall had resulted in her current symptoms of rotator cuff impingement. The applicant reported that she was functioning normally prior to the fall and since the fall she had been plagued by ongoing pain and limitations.[73] 78. On 22 November 2023 A/Prof Courtenay re-examined the applicant providing a forensic report to the respondent dated 24 November 2023.[74] The doctor confirmed his previous opinion that falling backwards was less likely to have caused a shoulder injury as it was less likely to lead to loading of the shoulder. In the doctor's opinion the shoulder condition is not connected to the fall at work noting that there was a significant gap in the evidence before the shoulder was regarded as a significant issue. 79. The applicant relies on two forensic reports of Dr Gavin Soo, shoulder and knee surgeon, dated 19 June 2024.[75] Dr Soo records a history that the applicant presented to her GP three days after the fall at work due to ongoing pain to her whole body but mainly to her lower back. Dr Soo records that the applicant noticed worsening pain to her neck and both shoulders, although the right shoulder was the worst. 80. Dr Soo noted that prior to the accident at work the applicant had been diagnosed with bursitis to both shoulders and had previous injections in 2014 and 2017 which helped her symptoms. 81. Dr Soo diagnosed right shoulder recurrent bursitis and adhesive capsulitis secondary to the fall at work. Dr Soo believes that the fall at work on 16 February 2019 likely aggravated the recurrent bursitis and resulted in the development of adhesive capsulitis in the right shoulder. In the opinion of Dr Soo, the history the applicant provided and the mechanism of injury of falling off a stool is consistent with the injury. 82. A/Prof Courtenay conducted a further examination of the applicant on 11 September 2024 providing a further forensic report to the respondent dated 18 September 2024.[76] The doctor reports that he enquired of the applicant as to why the shoulders were not included with the back when the workers compensation claim was made to which she responded that there had been a past history of shoulder bursitis and she had on a couple of occasions received cortisone injections and it had settled. The applicant suspected it was the same, although she did say that it started to feel different. 83. A/Prof Courtenay again observed that there was a disconnect between the past history of the applicant's shoulder and the fact that it was almost 18 months to two years after the fall at work where the shoulder was thought to be different from what it had been in the past. 84. A/Prof Courtenay also observed that the natural progression of subacromial bursitis is that it will continue and it will lead to some degree of, with age, degeneration of the tendons. A small split in the supraspinatus is not indicative, in the doctor's opinion, of acute trauma in the fall that occurred at work. In the opinion of A/Prof Courtenay the pathology is nothing more than an extension of what she had previously in 2014 and 2017. 85. The doctor maintained his opinion that the applicant did not sustain a shoulder injury in the fall at work. The doctor felt that there had just been a natural progression in the applicant's pre-existing shoulder condition.

1. It is the applicant's evidence that she had not previously experienced any issues with her sleep.[77]
2. It is the applicant's evidence that since the fall at work she has experienced significant difficulty sleeping and that she was referred to the respiratory and sleep physician, Dr David Freiberg, on whom she initially attended in February 2022.[78] It is the applicant's evidence that she doesn't sleep due to severe burning in her buttocks and down her leg.[79]
3. It is the applicant's evidence that prior to suffering the subject injury she would have around seven hours of unbroken sleep each night and that since the injury she is unable to sleep more than a couple of hours before she is woken by pain. She then struggles to fall back to sleep and that her husband says that she has jerking limb movements when asleep.[80]
4. On 1 March 2022 Dr Freiberg reported to Dr Law on the findings of a diagnostic polysomnogram which in the opinion of Dr Freiberg indicated poor sleep quality due to chronic pain and anxiety. No sleep apnoea was observed. In the opinion of Dr Freiberg there was however borderline mild periodic limb movement disorder which the doctor observed can be associated with back injuries and the associated medication.
5. In the opinion of Dr Freiberg, the sleep study confirmed the clinical impression that the applicant is awake for long periods of the night because of pain and when she is asleep there are constant disruptions and awakenings due to pain, emotion and anxiety. The doctor concluded that the study indicated that the applicant has a permanent impairment of her sleep as a result of her work injury.[81]
6. Dr Freiberg provided a report to the applicant dated 13 March 2024.[82] Dr Freiberg recorded that prior to her workplace injury the applicant had an uninterrupted seven hours of sleep, she was not known to snore, and she would wake refreshed. There was no history of periodic limb movement disorder.
7. Dr Freiberg observed that a typical night's sleep now is disturbed and disrupted constantly due to pain. She sleeps predominantly on her side. Her husband reports snoring. She is unrefreshed by her constant disturbed and restless sleep and her husband has noted jerking limb movements throughout the night. The doctor scored the applicant 15/24 on an Epworth Sleepiness Score.
8. Dr Freiberg noted that on 21 February 2022 the applicant had a supervised diagnostic polysomnogram. She had a sleep efficiency of 56% or a total sleep time of 273 minutes which equated to a 35% reduction in her reported pre-injury sleep duration. The doctor observed that as a proportion of her overall sleep time the deeper stage of REM sleep was reduced at 14% with the normal range being 20% to 25% of total sleep time. The doctor observed that the applicant had 29 spontaneous awakenings with a spontaneous arousal index of 10/hour.
9. In the opinion of Dr Freiberg, the likely aetiology of the spontaneous arousals and awakenings is due to her pain. The doctor observed that the applicant had seven arousals/hour due to periodic limb movement disorder.
10. In the opinion of Dr Freiberg, the applicant reported symptoms consistent with this only since her workplace injury. The doctor observed that there was no snoring or significant sleep disordered breathing.
11. In the opinion of Dr Freiberg, the sleep study shows severe insomnia due to pain and mild periodic limb movement disorder. In the opinion of Dr Freiberg the likely aetiology of her periodic limb movement disorder is the nerve damage to her lumbar spine and the anti-depressant Endep medication. Her pre-existing diabetes could also contribute although there was no history to suggest this disorder prior to her workplace injury.

1. The applicant bears the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that she sustained the alleged injury to her right shoulder. Issues of causation must be determined on the facts in each case through a commonsense evaluation of the causal chain_.[83]_
2. The applicant has not discharged her onus of proof. I am of the view that the weight of the evidence does not support, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant sustained an injury to her right shoulder in the fall on 16 February 2019.
3. I do not accept the applicant's evidence that a few days after the fall she began to notice pain in both her shoulders, right shoulder worse than left. If the applicant's evidence were accepted her right shoulder would presumably have been symptomatic when she attended on her GP's on 19 February 2019 and 20 February 2019 and would certainly have been symptomatic by the time of her consultation with Dr Law on 7 March 2019 yet there is no mention of either shoulder in the clinical records for those consultations. The consultation of 7 March 2019 is of particular significance as at that time, according to the clinical record of the consultation, the applicant was thinking about making a workers compensation claim.
4. These consultations occur prior to the applicant's mother being diagnosed with a terminal illness and therefore the lack of the recording of any shoulder injury or complaints is not explained by the applicant becoming focused on caring for her mother and spending time with her mother.
5. Whilst the applicant continued to attend on her GPs it is not until 19 September 2019 when the applicant consults Dr Deada, some seven months after the fall at work, that the clinical records record any complaints in respect to the applicant's shoulders.
6. On 19 September 2019 the applicant complained to Dr Deada of bilateral shoulder pain however the clinical record of the attendance records no history in respect to the development of the shoulder conditions and in particular no history in respect to the applicant having sustained any injury to her shoulders in the fall at work.
7. It is not until 11 August 2021, approximately two and a half years after the fall at work, that the clinical records contain any reference to the applicant having sustained injury to her shoulders in the fall at work. It is possible that the alleged injury was reported approximately one month earlier on 7 July 2021 to Dr Kuo which I will discuss further below. However in my view, given the circumstances, it is of no significance whether the subject history is first reported and recorded on 11 August 2021 or 7 July 2021.
8. Following the initial complaint of bilateral shoulder pain on 19 September 2019 following the fall at work on 16 February 2019 the applicant continued to attend on her GP's whose clinical records record no history of the applicant sustaining a shoulder injury in the fall at work until as previously mentioned, 11 August 2021.
9. On 4 October 2019 the applicant consulted the GP, Dr Lee, in respect to bursitis of both shoulders. The doctor explained the possible causes and the management. The clinical record of the consultation does not record what those possible causes were. However, it does not appear that the fall at work was considered a possible cause as no notice of the injury was provided to the workers compensation insurer and no claim was made even though the applicant would subsequently commence to receive treatment for her shoulders.
10. The applicant's treatment in respect to her shoulders between 4 October 2019 and

11 August 2021 includes on 4 October 2019 an ultrasound of both shoulders, on

5 October 2019 bilateral shoulder injections, on 9 November 2019 an injection to the right shoulder, on 12 November 2019 an injection to the left shoulder, on 5 February 2021 an X-ray and ultrasound of the right shoulder, on 9 February 2021 an injection to the right subacromial bursa, on 26 February 2021 an injection to the right shoulder, on 17 March 2021 an ultrasound of the left shoulder, on 1 April 2021 an injection to the left subacromial bursa, on 26 July 2021 an MRI of the right shoulder, referral to a physiotherapist and on

9 April 2021 referral to the orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Kuo. 11. On 16 October 2019 the applicant consulted Dr Law at which time, according to the clinical record of the consultation, the applicant indicated that she wished to claim workers compensation. Significantly even though the applicant wished to make a workers compensation claim the clinical record contains no mention of either shoulder even though Dr Lee had discussed possible causes of the shoulder condition with the applicant on

4 October 2019. 12. On 31 October 2019 the applicant consulted Dr Law with the reason for the attendance recorded as "workcover". The clinical record of the attendance once again records no mention of either shoulder. 13. On 7 November 2019 the applicant consulted Dr Lee for right shoulder bursitis and tendonitis. The clinical record of the consultation again records that the doctor explained possible causes but again does not record what those possible causes were. On

14 November 2019 and 28 November 2019, the applicant again consults Dr Law in relation to "workcover" and again the clinical records for the consultations contain no mention of either shoulder. 14. On 9 July 2020 the applicant participated in a case conference with Dr Law and a rehabilitation provider which seems to have been in respect to the applicant's workers compensation claim. The clinical record of the attendance again contains no reference to either shoulder. 15. On 31 July 2020 the applicant consulted Dr Law. The clinical record of the consultation records that the applicant was still in a lot of pain. The clinical record relevantly records that Dr Suttor had requested a bone scan which was "not part of WC, pt paid for it herself". The bone scan which was for longstanding aches, including both shoulders, was performed on

5 August 2020. 16. On 27 August 2020 a further case conference was held with the applicant, Dr Law and Pinnacle Rehabilitation. Once again even though the case conference presumably related to the workers compensation claim in respect to the fall at work, the clinical record of the consultation records no reference to either shoulder. 17. On 29 October 2020 the applicant attended on Dr Derek Lee, occupational physician, who provided to the respondent an injury management consultant report dated 30 October 2020. The doctor takes a history of the fall at work and the development of low back pain. 18. The doctor did not record any history in respect to the applicant having sustained an injury to either shoulder in the fall even though the doctor did record that the applicant had long standing right shoulder bursitis which commenced in approximately 2014 when she had her first cortisone injection and that this would fluctuate intermittently and that the applicant was able to manage this with home based exercises and intermittent cortisone injections, the latest of which had been performed six months prior to examination. 19. As the applicant was being examined by Dr Derek Lee at the request of the respondent and took both a history of the fall at work and the applicant's complaints, it is difficult to understand why the applicant would not have mentioned to the doctor that she had sustained injury to her shoulders in the fall at work. It is in my view unlikely that the doctor would not have recorded any such history if it were given, the doctor having gone to the effort of recording the history of the shoulder condition. 20. The applicant again attended on Dr Law in respect to "workcover" on 11 November 2020 and again the clinical record of the consultation contains no reference to either shoulder. 21. Further case conferences in respect to the workers compensation claim were held on

16 December 2020 and 21 January 2021 which were attended by the applicant, Dr Law and the rehabilitation provider. Once again, the clinical records of the attendances contain no reference to either shoulder. 22. On 7 July 2021 Dr Kuo reported to Dr Law that the applicant presented with right greater than left shoulder pain. The doctor records that the applicant reported that she has had symptoms for 8-10 years without any specific history of trauma. 23. It is possible that the applicant did report to Dr Kuo on 7 July 2021 that she injured her shoulders in the fall at work. Whilst the report to Dr Law of 7 July 2021 does not refer to the shoulders being injured, Dr Kuo in his report of 27 October 2023 records that the history which he obtained at his first consultation with the applicant on 7 July 2021 was that she had hit her buttocks, head and shoulders in the fall. Unfortunately, the clinical notes of Dr Kuo are not in evidence. In any event Dr Kuo's consultation is only approximately one month prior to the applicant's attendance on Dr Law on 11 August 2021 and in the circumstances, nothing in my view turns on the one-month difference in the taking and recording of the history given the amount of time that had elapsed since the fall at work. 24. On 11 August 2021 a Certificate of Capacity recording right shoulder pain for the first time as part of the diagnosis for the injury sustained on 16 February 2019 was issued. The certificate records that the applicant had been having right shoulder pain since the fall "but did not realise this was due to fall." 25. The clinical record of the applicant's consultation with Dr Law on 11 August 2021 records that the insurance company had been spoken to about the shoulders and that the applicant wanted to claim workers compensation for them as well. The doctor noted that she was "not sure if it will work but added to WC cert." 26. The clinical record of Dr Law in my view appears to indicate that the doctor had some doubt as to the causal relationship between the fall at work and the shoulder condition. In my view the weight of the evidence supports that this was the first time that the applicant had reported to Dr Law that she had injured her shoulders in the fall at work. The clinical note and the Certificate of Capacity of 11 August 2021 are the first clinical records to refer to the shoulders being injured in the fall at work. 27. Furthermore, Dr Law in her report dated 28 May 2023 noted, not having access to the relevant clinical records, that it was her memory that it was not until sometime perhaps between June and November 2021 that the applicant reported that her right shoulder was still sore from the work fall. Dr Law recalled being surprised by this as the doctor had not realised that the applicant had injured her shoulder during the fall. Dr Law records that the applicant insisted that she had told the doctor, but the doctor had not document it. However, Dr Law observed that she has always been very thorough at documenting notes especially for workers compensation cases and she did not recall the applicant reporting right shoulder issues shortly after the fall at work. The doctor recalls that after she told the applicant that, the applicant said she might have gone to another doctor in Plumpton Medical Centre for her shoulder. 28. There is no mention in the clinical records of the Plumpton Medical Centre prior to

11 August 2021 of the applicant sustaining a shoulder injury in the fall at work. It is also in my view inconsistent that the applicant would have attended multiple attendances with Dr Law in respect to her workers compensation claim including case conferences with the rehabilitation provider without mentioning that she had sustained a shoulder injury especially in the context of the significant and often invasive treatment which she was receiving. 29. Given the delay in the recording of any shoulder complaints following the fall at work. The further delay in respect to any history being recorded in the clinical records of injury having been sustained to the right shoulder in the fall at work. As well as the delay in giving notice of the alleged shoulder injury to the respondent and the making of a workers compensation claim. All in the context of repeated attendance on her GPs in respect to her workers compensation claim including case conference and the provision of certificates of capacity and undergoing extensive treatment for her shoulder conditions. I do not accept the applicant's evidence that she had an onset of shoulder symptoms within a few days of the fall at work. 30. I do not accept the explanation given by the applicant to A/Prof Michael Shatwell that initially she did not consider that her developing impingement problems in her right shoulder was related to her fall at work. Even if the applicant had initially not considered the condition to be related to work the first mention of the condition being related to work is not until

11 August 2021 approximately two and a half years after the injury was allegedly sustained and this is despite the GP, Dr Lee, discussing possible causes for the condition with the applicant. The applicant holding such a belief would also in my opinion be inconsistent with the history recorded by Dr New that the applicant reported that she did not have any right shoulder symptoms prior to the fall at work. 31. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that I should accept the opinion of Dr Soo as to causation. In the opinion of Dr Soo, the fall at work on 16 February 2019 likely aggravated the recurrent bursitis and resulted in the development of adhesive capsulitis in the right shoulder. In the opinion of Dr Soo, the history the applicant provided and the mechanism of injury of falling off a stool is consistent with the injury. 32. I do not accept the opinion of Dr Soo. Dr Soo relies on the applicant's history that she had an onset of shoulder symptoms within a few days of the fall at work. I do not accept the applicant's history as to the onset of the shoulder symptoms for the reasons previously given. For the same reasons I do not accept the opinions as to causation of Dr Kuo and Dr New. 33. Given the pre-existing shoulder condition, and having rejected the evidence of the applicant that there was an onset of shoulder symptoms within a few days of the fall at work, I prefer and accept the opinion A/Prof Courtenay that the right shoulder condition is not connected to the fall at work but rather that it is the natural progression of the applicant's pre-existing shoulder condition. 34. A/Prof Courtenay came to this opinion after noting the disconnect between the past history of the applicant's shoulder and the fact that it was almost 18 months to two years after the fall at work before the shoulder was thought to be different from what it had been in the past. I agree with A/Prof Courtney's opinion that there is a disconnect in the evidence which I have previously discussed. A/Prof Shatwell has reached a similar opinion to A/Prof Courtenay. 35. For the above reasons I find that the applicant did not sustain injury to her right shoulder as alleged.

1. The question whether a consequential condition has been sustained is a question of fact.[84] Issues of causation must be determined on the facts in each case through a commonsense evaluation of the causal chain_.[85]_
2. In Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan [2016] NSWWCCPD 23 at [100] (Brennan) Deputy President Snell observed that it is not necessary for a worker alleging a consequential condition to establish that it is an 'injury' (including 'injury' based on the 'disease' provisions) within the meaning of s 4 of the 1987 Act.
3. Moon v Conmah Pty Limited [2009] NSWWCCPD 134 (Moon) involved a compensable injury to the right shoulder which allegedly resulted in a consequential condition of the left shoulder. In Moon Deputy President Roche at [45] stated:

"It is therefore not necessary for Mr Moon to establish that he suffered an 'injury' to his left shoulder within the meaning of that term in section 4 of the 1987 Act. All he has to establish is that the symptoms and restrictions in his left shoulder have resulted from his right shoulder injury..."

1. In the applicant's submission I should accept the opinion of Dr Freiberg. The respondent submits that if it is found, as I have, that the applicant did not sustain injury as alleged to the right shoulder, then it should also be found that the applicant has not suffered a consequential sleep condition. In summary it is the respondent's submission that the evidence of Dr Freiberg is deficient in that it fails to identify the injury that is the cause of the applicant's disturbed sleep and that the doctor does not identify which limbs he is referring to in regard to limb movement.
2. I accept the applicant's submission and reject the respondent's submission.
3. Dr Freiberg in reaching his opinion relevantly recorded that prior to her workplace injury the applicant had an uninterrupted seven hours of sleep; she would wake refreshed and there was no history of periodic limb movement disorder.
4. Dr Freiberg noted that on 21 February 2022 the applicant had a supervised diagnostic polysomnogram. She had a sleep efficiency of 56% or a total sleep time of 273 minutes which equated to a 35% reduction in her reported pre-injury sleep duration. The doctor observed that as a proportion of her overall sleep time the deeper stage of REM sleep was reduced at 14% with the normal range being 20% to 25% of total sleep time. The doctor observed that the applicant had 29 spontaneous awakenings with a spontaneous arousal index of 10/hour.
5. In the opinion of Freiberg, the likely aetiology of the spontaneous arousals and awakenings is due to her pain. The doctor observed that the applicant had seven arousals/hour due to periodic limb movement disorder.
6. In the opinion of Dr Freiberg, the applicant reported symptoms consistent with this only since her workplace injury. In the opinion of Dr Freiberg, the sleep study shows severe insomnia due to pain and mild periodic limb movement disorder. In the opinion of Dr Freiberg, the likely aetiology of her periodic limb movement disorder is the nerve damage to her lumbar spine and the anti-depressant Endep medication. Her pre-existing diabetes could also contribute although there was no history to suggest this disorder prior to her workplace injury.
7. The opinion of Dr Freiberg is unchallenged. Dr Freiberg's opinion is logical and well reasoned. I therefore accept his opinion.
8. Dr Freiberg clearly identifies in his report as the cause for the applicant's periodic limb movement disorder the injury to the lumbar spine. The doctor also refers to pain as being a cause of the applicant's insomnia. Whilst it is true that the applicant suffers from shoulder pain the applicant also suffers from pain as a result of the back injury and I refer to the numerous references to back pain in the clinical records referred to in respect to the shoulder injury. There are further references to the applicant complaining of pain littered throughout the clinical records generally some of which I was taken to by Mr Tanner during his submissions. I accept the applicant's submissions in respect to the applicant suffering from pain as a result of the back injury.
9. I am therefore of the view that the sleep disorder results from the accepted work injury and therefore find that the applicant has suffered the alleged consequential condition in the form of a sleep disorder.

1. As I have found that the applicant did not sustain injury to her right shoulder as alleged there will be an award for the respondent in respect to injury to the right shoulder.
2. As I have found that the applicant has suffered the alleged consequential condition in the form of a sleep disorder and as there is no dispute in respect to injury to the lumbar spine, I will remit the matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of impairment of the lumbar spine and nervous system.

[83] Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452; (1994) 10 NSWCCR 796.

[84] State of New South Wales v Bishop [2014] NSWCA 354.

[85] Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452; (1994) 10 NSWCCR 796.