The applicant has not demonstrated that the L5/S1 discectomy and left S1 decompression surgery performed by Dr Saeed Kohan in 2015 was reasonably necessary as a result of the workplace injury.
The applicant has not demonstrated that the L5/S1 anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion surgery performed by Dr Saeed Kohan in 2022 was reasonably necessary as a result of the workplace injury."
However Member Homan in her analysis of the evidence said that she was not prepared to make a positive finding that there was an intervening event or new injury in or around November 2014 which had been suggested by Mr Angelkoski's treating surgeon. Member Homan explained that this was because of deficiencies in the evidence, which was in some ways conflicting as to what had happened in November 2014, if anything.
She noted Dr Machart's opinion at [181] that whilst the workplace injury remained a contributing factor to the overall impairment found, the contribution from the subject workplace injury, could not have been any greater than the 7% that had already been awarded. Dr Machart expressed the opinion that it was Mr Angelkoski's exposure to unrestricted work after he ceased employment with the appellant employer that had necessitated the two surgeries.
Member Homan thought that although Dr Machart had found that there was a small contribution to the need for surgery, she was not satisfied that he had expressed a clear and reasoned opinion that there had been a material contribution to the need for surgery from the workplace injury.
Member Homan noted that "there were real questions" around whether the evidence did support a finding that there were subsequent work-related injuries as suggested by Dr Matchart at [184]. However she held that it was not a necessary nor appropriate to make findings in the proceedings before her, as there had been no claim made on any subsequent employer and neither had any been joined to the current proceedings. She noted that she needed to determine whether the injury in March 2010 materially contributed to the need for surgery, finding that it had not.
Mr Angelkoski subsequently made a statement on 24 September 2024,[10] in which he described his injury whist working for the appellant employer and indeed that in 2012 he came to surgery for his wrists which had been covered by the appellant employer.
At [7] Mr Angelkoski stated that he continued to experience lower back symptoms since 23 March 2010 and that it had never felt the same since that date.
He said at [8] that in 2015 he started to see Dr Saed Kohan, specialist neurosurgeon, regarding his lower back and left leg radiculopathy. He did not go through workers compensation as his previous experiences had caused him a great deal of stress, anxiety and anger.
He said at [9] that he underwent lower back surgery and an L5/S1 discectomy, which he paid for by withdrawing money from his superannuation.
About seven months thereafter he started working as a pipe maker in Moss Vale, not in the pipe laying process but rather in the manufacturing stage, which was automated. All he had to do was lay down the pipes onto the crates after they had been moulded.
He said the pipes were made of hard plastic and did not weigh very much. He had been also required to operate a forklift here and there.
Nonetheless he was unable to work for more than six months as a result of the pain he was suffering. He came to gastric sleeve surgery in 2016 and found work again as a butcher in Warrawong, working short shifts of four to five hours.
He compared that employment with his conditions whilst he was working for the appellant employer but even so his pain symptoms were such that he had difficulty both with his hands and his lower back.
He tried to return to various employers between 2018 and 2020 but his back symptoms were too painful and he started a truck driving role in 2018 but that only lasted a few months, again for the same reason.
He was also working casually as a security worker at a club on and off over a few years, but he ultimately left that role because he knew he had not been able to contribute to any situation that required physical intervention.
In 2020 he started a role as a driver and Portaloo cleaner for Coates Hire.
"I did not have any acute flare ups or incidents requiring me to seek medical attention whilst working at any or my subsequent employers. My pain symptoms have persisted since the I initial injury with Woolworths and those symptoms have worsened over time despite my many surgeries and despite always trying to take good care of my body and not cause any further damage."
[3]
"I understand that Dr Kohan indicated at that time that my back pain was potentially aggravated by use of a heavy pipe whilst I was at work. This is incorrect and I believe Dr Kohan misunderstood the nature of my work...."
"Whilst I have made many attempts to return to work with alternate employer following my injury with Woolworths, any position or role I have attempted to fulfil has been overshadowed by my persistent lumbar spine pain which has preserved since 2010 and which I have had to carefully manage so as to avoid any further injury. Despite these attempts, my lumbar spine condition has continued to deteriorate, particularly following surgery."
[6]
We note that this statement was not before Member Homan, and may have been admissible fresh evidence in any appeal to the Presidential Unit.
Further, we are of the opinion that from the viewpoint of medical science, there was indeed a link between the injury with Woolworths and the subsequent need for the surgical procedures undertaken. We note particularly that an MRI carried out on 30 April 2010 showed "a posterocentral broad-based disc herniation at the L5/S1 level causing impingement on the left side traversing S1 nerve root". This has been Mr Angelkoski's ongoing problem ever since he was employed by Woolworths, where he stopped working in 2012. It is clear that the work that he did after that would have aggravated this underlying condition and the MRI of the lumbar spine on 30 January 2015 showed "L5/S1 very large disc extrusion which would compress the descending nerve roots". That is, the same pathology as was evident in the MRI of 30 April 2010, but the disc lesion has increased in size.
Additionally, it would appear that Member Homan was asked to rule on a matter that came within the definition of a Medical Dispute pursuant to s 319 of the 1998 Act, namely the aetiology of Mr Angelkoski's condition, and questions of jurisdiction may thereby have arisen.[14]
None of these matters were raised by the respondent, but we make these observations in view of the invitation extended by Mr Angelkoski for the Appeal Panel to consider the first ground of appeal.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 25 August 2025 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.
The Appeal Panel revokes the Medical Assessment Certificate of Medical Assessor Peter Honeyman and issues this new Medical Assessment Certificate as to the matters set out in the table below.
[9]
Chapter, page and paragraph number in NSW workers compensation guidelines
[10]
Chapter, page, paragraph, figure and table numbers in AMA 5 Guides
[11]
Proportion of permanent impairment due to pre-existing injury, abnormality or condition
[12]
Sub-total/s % WPI (after any deductions in column 6)
Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021
Cases Cited (2)
Woolworths Group Ltd v Angelkoski [2026] NSWPICMP 162; (3 March 2026)
The procedures on appeal are contained in s 328 of the 1998 Act. The appeal is to be by way of review of the original medical assessment but the review is limited to the grounds of appeal on which the appeal is made.
In Campbelltown City Council v Vegan[2006] NSWCA 284 the Court of Appeal held that the Appeal Panel is obliged to give reasons. Where there are disputes of fact it may be necessary to refer to evidence or other material on which findings are based, but the extent to which this is necessary will vary from case to case. Where more than one conclusion is open, it will be necessary to explain why one conclusion is preferred. On the other hand, the reasons need not be extensive or provide a detailed explanation of the criteria applied by the medical professionals in reaching a professional judgement.