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

1. At approximately 4.00am on 12 October 2022, Wayne Skinner (the applicant) was involved in a motor accident when he was struck by a forklift whilst in the course of his employment as a truck driver for Freight Specialists Pty Limited (the respondent) at an address in Bateman's Bay.
2. There is no issue the applicant suffered an extremely serious injury to his right leg in the nature of a tibial fracture requiring open reduction and internal fixation, together with severe scarring to his right leg. Additionally, the applicant claims to have suffered a consequential condition to his lumbar spine as a result of an altered gait caused by his injury. The consequential condition to the lumbar spine is disputed.

1. The parties agree that the only issue for determination is whether the applicant suffered a consequential condition to his lumbar spine as a result of his accepted injuries.
2. Regardless of the outcome of this dispute, the applicant's right lower extremity and consequential scarring will be referred for medical assessment. If there is a determination on the consequential condition in the applicant's favour, his lumbar spine will also be referred for assessment.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

1. 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.
2. The parties attended a hearing before me on 20 January 2026. The applicant was represented by Mr Necovski, instructed by Mr Bechara. The respondent was represented by Mr Doak, instructed by Ms Yang.

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

(a) Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application), and

(b) Reply.

1. There was no oral evidence called at the hearing.

Whether the applicant suffered a consequential condition to his lumbar spine

1. The test for establishing the presence of a consequential condition is not as rigorous as that for establishing an injury pursuant to ss 4 or 4(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
2. The authorities make it clear that in determining whether a consequential condition exists, it is not necessary to establish a sudden or identifiable pathological change, as required for proving injury under ss 4 and 9A of the 1987 Act. Rather, it is necessary to determine whether the applicant's accepted injury has caused a condition to arise in his lumbar spine. As Roche DP noted at [44]-[46] in Moon v Conmah Pty Limited [2009] NSWWCCPD 134 (Moon):

"44. The evidence in support of this allegation is brief but clear. It is obvious that Mr Moon has experienced significant restrictions in the use of his right arm and shoulder for several years. It is not disputed that that restriction has resulted from his employment with Conmah. As a result, he has used his left arm and shoulder to compensate for his right shoulder condition. Therefore, Mr Moon is claiming compensation for a consequential loss. That is, a loss or impairment that he alleges has resulted from his previous compensable injury to his right shoulder (see Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Malcolm (1996) 13 NSWCCR 272).

1. It is therefore not necessary for Mr Moon to establish that he suffered a 'injury' to his left shoulder within the meaning of that term in s 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. Therefore, to the extent that the arbitrator and Dr Huntsdale approached the matter on the basis that Mr Moon had to establish that he suffered a 'injury' to his left shoulder in the course of his employment with Conmah, they asked the wrong question.
2. The test of causation in a claim for lump sum compensation is the same as it is in a claim for weekly compensation, namely, has the lost 'resulted from' the relevant work injury." (my emphasis)
3. The authorities have long held that the phrase "resulted from" means the injury only needs to have made a material contribution to the consequential condition: see for example Murphy v Allity Management Services [2015] NSWWCCPD 49.
4. Mr Necovski pointed out, correctly in my view, that corroboration is not necessary to either verify or to accept evidence in a civil case: Chanaa v Zarour [2011] NSWCA 199. He submitted, however, that there was corroboration for the applicant's allegation of consequential condition to his lumbar spine in any event, found in the reports of both a treating podiatrist and exercise physiologist.
5. Mr Doak for the respondent submitted the recordings in the reports of the podiatrist and exercise physiologist surrounding the lumbar spine were in fact recordings only of the history provided by the applicant, and not statements of opinion by those practitioners.
6. It should be noted that the podiatrist and exercise physiologist are each treating practitioners and not medicolegal experts. It was not suggested by the respondent that those practitioners should be criticised for the brevity of their summary of the applicant's conditions and, where set out by them, its cause or causes. However, the manner of and extent to which these matters are traversed in the reports of treating practitioners may contribute to the weight afforded to the contents of those reports and the opinions contained in them.
7. Certainly, neither of those treating practitioners provided any comment to the effect the applicant's complaint of lumbar spine consequent upon his accepted injury were either not feasible or unreasonable.
8. In any event, as Mr Neckovski noted, absent corroboration from medical practitioners, acceptance of an injured worker's statement may be sufficient to ground a finding of consequential condition: see Proops v MSS Security Pty Limited [2024] NSWPICPD 45 (9 August 2024) (Proops). In that matter, Parker ADP noted:

"73. The member's apparent acceptance of the appellant's statement evidence is decisively against her conclusion that there was no evidence of frank injury to the neck on 5 May 2015. The appellant's evidence was that following the accident, he had neck pain and that he reported to his general practitioner. The pain resolved within a few days. In that circumstance, it is unsurprising there was no treatment given.

1. The member did not reject the appellant's evidence. Indeed, she says there was no issue as to his credibility. The member did not find the evidence to be unreliable. It follows that there was evidence of injury to the neck on 5 May 2015.
2. The member dismissed the frank injury claim on the basis of that 'the information contained in the claim form a notification of incident' identified areas of injury as the right ankle and the left shoulder. That was so, but the member was required to engage with the appellant's statement evidence and the very substantial medical support for a causal relationship between the events of 5 May 2015 and the neck injury."
3. In this matter, there is also no criticism as to the veracity of the applicant's evidence. Indeed, the respondent's own Independent Medical Examiner (IME) Dr Haig describes the applicant as presenting in a stoic and genuine manner. Quite appropriately, Mr Doak made no criticism of the appellant's credit.
4. In his statement, the appellant said:

"123. I have ongoing and continuing symptoms where I am currently still experiencing continuing chronic back pain and leg pain. I am unable to walk long distance, cannot perform preinjury duties, difficulty attending to domestic care and personal duties, suffering from consequential sleep disturbance. I continue to experience ongoing pain, restriction and reduced capacity."

1. The applicant's statement evidence is broadly consistent with the views of his IME, Dr Nair, orthopaedic surgeon. In his report from December 2024, Dr Nair noted the applicant walked with an antalgic gait and suffered approximately 50% reduction in thoracolumbar range of motion.
2. The respondent's IME, Dr Haig provided two reports. Dr Haig noted the applicant's lumbar spine had not been investigated, a fact which does not appear to be in dispute. He also noted at the applicant's age, it would not be surprising if there were age-related degenerative changes.
3. Each of these observations is factually correct. However, there is no evidence the applicant suffered from any back issues before the injury at issue.
4. Dr Haig also addressed the opinion of Dr Nair and said:

"I do not believe there is any cause or connection between his relatively minor complaint of back pain and his right lower extremity condition. The literature states that unless there is a significant leg length difference and a significant interval of time between the injury and the development of back pain, then back pain is not consequential upon any gait abnormality."

1. Dr Haig does not provide the source material to which he refers, and in any event, it is apparent that the applicant's complaint of back pain in 2024 came some two years after his extremely serious right leg injury.
2. It should also be said that the test for the establishment of a consequential condition tangentially referred to by Dr Haig does not accord with that relied on in this jurisdiction. Certainly, Dr Haig's opinion is one which should be taken into account. However, the criteria set out in his report do not provide the definitive basis for establishing the presence or otherwise of the consequential condition.
3. Rather, what is required is a commonsense evaluation of the causal chain having regard to the totality of the lay and medical evidence: see Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452 (Kooragang).
4. In Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd [2012] NSWWCCPD 8 (Kumar), Roach DP addressed the decision in Kooragang as it applies to claims for consequential condition. The Deputy President noted that since the decision in Kooragang, it has been well recognised that an injury can set in train a series of events. If the chain is unbroken and provides the relevant causative explanation of the incapacity or death from which the claim comes, it will be open to the Commission to award compensation under the 1987 Act.
5. In this matter, I am satisfied the applicant's lumbar spine condition has occurred as a result of his very serious right lower extremity injury.
6. The fact the applicant suffers an antalgic gait is not in issue. He otherwise relies on the use of a walking stick. Although there are no general practitioner clinical records, there is a report dated 18 July 2024 to the applicant's GP from Ms Nguyen, exercise physiologist, in which she notes the applicant's antalgic gait has resulted in pain in his hips and lower back due to changes to his gait pattern.
7. Although Mr Doak submitted that observation was purely based on history and was not a diagnosis, it is noted Ms Nguyen recommended the applicant focus on strengthening his lower limb to improve standing, walking capacity and that he should also focus on core and lower limb strengthening to "support lower back symptoms". That comment is, in my view, consistent with the practitioner accepting a causal link between the accepted injury and the alleged consequential condition.
8. As noted, although Ms Nguyen has not set out in detail her reasoning for the causal link between the injury and the consequential condition, such shortcoming is not fatal to a finding the consequential condition exists. This is particularly the case where Ms Nguyen is a treating practitioner providing a report to a GP, and was not retained to provide a medicolegal opinion.
9. On 16 January 2024, Mr Kodsy, podiatrist, also provided a short report. That report noted "due to the chronic period of compensation during gait/general day-to-day movements, he is experiencing more lower back and centralised raw knee pain". Mr Kodsy noted it had been 1.5 years since the injury and the applicant complained of exacerbated pain with excessive weightbearing activity. Mr Kodsy carried out an examination including the balance error scoring system which revealed evident antalgic gait, together with left knee pain and heavier heel strike on the injured right foot.
10. The findings of these two treating practitioners are, in my view, broadly consistent with those of Dr Nair. Dr Nair observed the applicant's gait over 25m and noted there was an antalgic gait component. On examination, Dr Nair also recorded an approximately 50% reduction in thoracolumbar range of motion. As previously noted, there is no evidence of pre-existing lumbar pain.
11. Dr Nair was of the opinion the applicant's discogenic lower back pain was consequent to the injury at issue.
12. Having examined the totality of the lay and medical evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities the applicant has discharged his ownness of proving his lower back condition has occurred as a result of the injury at issue. That is, his injury and the antalgic gait which arose from it has made a material contribution to the development of the condition in his lumbar spine.
13. This being so, there will be a finding that the applicant suffered a consequential condition to his lumbar spine as a result of his accepted right lower limb injury and this body system will be referred for medical assessment along with the applicant's right lower extremity and his scarring.

1. For the above reasons, the Commission will make the findings and orders set out on page one of the Certificate of Determination.