Dr Wallace's should be rejected because his history, that Mr Yu did not complain of cervical symptoms, is totally at odds with Mr Yu's statement and the other medical evidence. Counsel also submits that Dr Wallace did not examine Mr Yu's cervical spine unlike Dr Shahzad and even though Dr Wallace did refer to the MRI scan of the cervical spine, he did not refer to its significance. Counsel submits that at no stage does Dr Wallace engage with the views of A/Professor Papantoniou and Dr Shahzad. 7. The respondent submitted that the mechanism of injury is far from clear because there are different accounts recorded. He submits this matters because Dr Shahzad has said the mechanism of incident is consistent with an injury to his cervical spine having occurred. The respondent's counsel submits that when Dr Shahzad talks about the forces on the spine one might think he has taken into account the lumbar injury. However, counsel submits, while the respondent accepts there was a lumbar injury, in the first medical examination by Dr Han he refers to a chest wall injury with no mention of the back at that stage. Counsel refers to the clinical entry by Dr Han on 19 July 2022 which refers to low back pain from "compensating". It was submitted that these matters of history differ to that in Mr Yu's statement. The respondent's counsel poses the question, what does this tell one about the mechanism of injury and the forces exerted on the spine when the history is of "compensating". It is submitted that it diminishes the opinion of Dr Shahzad. The respondent's counsel submitted that in his first report Dr Shahzad did not record the delayed onset of neck symptoms and he has mistaken the correct date of referral for the MRI scan. Counsel also submits that Dr Shahzad in his first report also refers to A/Prof Papantoniou's report which seemed to relate the neck pain to onset at the time of the accident. Counsel is critical of Dr Shahzad's opinion relying on A/Prof Papantoniou's report. 8. The respondent then referred to the last report of Dr Shahzad where he discusses the mechanism of injury and submits he does not disclose the reasoning for his conclusion that the accident involved a sudden impact resulting in force being exerted down the spine. The respondent submits the mechanism of injury is in doubt and the applicant's counsel argued that there was "a progression of the pathology" but this was without any support of medical opinion. It was submitted that Dr Shahzad does not support such a theory and the respondent submits his opinion is really superficial and should not be accepted. 9. The respondent also submitted that the applicant does not tell us in his statement or to anyone where his neck symptoms were and how they started. Also, it is submitted that it has not been explained how there was disc desiccation occurring. It was submitted that Dr Lam records that the co-worker was putting the metal sheet down and the sheet jerked upwards catching him on the right side of his ribs and there was a near- fall. 10. The respondent submits it does not need to rely upon the opinion of Dr Wallace because the applicant has not explained the mechanism of injury to the cervical spine and the delayed onset of neck symptoms. The upshot of the respondent's submissions is that the applicant has not discharged his onus of proof and an award for the respondent should be found for the alleged injury to the cervical spine. 11. In reply the applicant's counsel submitted that the respondent's counsel's submission was that Dr Shahzad, being aware that the lumbar injury had been accepted, had led to him finding there were forces occurring on the spine that also injured the neck. However, the applicant submits there is no basis to infer that this was part of Dr Shahzad's reasoning. It was also submitted that the respondent had suggested an inference be drawn that Dr Shahzad, when quoting from A/Prof Papantoniou, had been influenced in concluding the neck had been injured. Again the applicant submits that this inference is not one that can be drawn from Dr Shahzad's opinion. The applicant submits that Dr Shahzad deals with the chain of causation and explains that it is consistent with an injury having occurred to the neck at the time of the incident, but with symptoms coming on later. 12. In relation to the respondent's submissions about the mechanism of injury, the applicant submitted that the most crucial part is that there was an extremely heavy metal sheet which was put down and struck his chest and whether or not it pinned him against the bin is not material. It is clear he was thrown sideways. He says the versions recorded by Dr Lam and Dr Han are essentially consistent and, as the respondent conceded they would have been more concerned with treatment than pinning down the fine details of the incident. 13. Finally, the applicant submitted that there is no contrary view to that of Dr Shahzad that notwithstanding the delay in onset of symptoms it is consistent with the accident causing the pathology found on the MRI scan and symptoms becoming apparent later. Counsel argues, absent a contradictor, Dr Shahzad does not need to expand upon this opinion.

1. The applicant has the onus of proof to establish the work accident on or about 12 July 2022 caused an injury to his cervical spine. The respondent's case has been made more difficult because Dr Wallace did not even examine Mr Yu's cervical spine, comment on the significance of the MRI scan findings or deal with Dr Shahzad's opinion about causation. These deficiencies in Dr Wallace's report have led me to place no weight on it. He bases his conclusion on the statement he attributes to the applicant that he did not complain about his cervical spine. I find I cannot rely upon this history as it is contrary to the histories recorded by Dr Shahad, A/Prof Papantoniou and Dr Lam of complaints of symptoms in the neck. The fact that an MRI scan of the cervical spine was undertaken indicates there must have been a cervical complaint to warrant Dr Lam to request the same. It is surprising that Dr Wallace does not comment on the significance of the pathology disclosed by the scan in a 37 year old man.
2. However, the fact that I place no weight on the respondent's medico-legal opinion does not mean that the applicant has discharged his onus of proof.
3. The applicant states he had a delayed onset of neck symptoms and made no complaint of them until the consultation with Dr Lam on 29 March 2023, about seven and a half months post-accident. I find I cannot place weight on A/Prof Papantoniou's finding about causation because it is not clear that he knew about the delay in onset of symptoms. Also his was a telehealth consultation so I am not assisted by physical examination findings of the applicant. He does refer to the MRI scan and accepts without any reasoning that the small disc bulge at C6/7 was caused by the work injury.
4. The MRI scan revealed mild disc desiccation at C3/4 and a small disc bulge at C6/7. There was no neural compression and all exiting nerves pass freely. The applicant was about 37 when this scan was performed and the findings may or may not be caused by trauma or early degenerative changes. I cannot determine the significance of these finding without medical evidence. As the respondent submits, the applicant has not given evidence as to where in the cervical spine he had symptoms and details of the onset. I also do not accept the applicant's counsel about a progression of pathology as there is no medical evidence to support that. I do not accept the respondent's submission that Dr Shahzad was influenced by A/Prof Papantoniou because it is evident that Dr Shahzad, unlike A/Prof Papantoniou, did conduct a detailed physical examination of Mr Yu.
5. Dr Shahzad is really the only doctor to provide a thorough examination of the cervical spine. He found muscle guarding over the cervical spine and tenderness or muscle atrophy of the sternocleidomastoid, levator scapulae, trapezius or paravertebral muscles. Also tenderness over the spine or paraspinal region. Dr Shahzad found the range of movement in all planes to be two thirds of normal. Asymmetry of spinal motion was recorded. Dr Shahzad found cervical compression test was positive. The neurological examination of the upper limbs revealed motor examination of C5 to T1 had abnormal muscle strength but otherwise was normal.
6. Dr Shahzad, when he was finally asked about the causation of the cervical symptoms, does provide an opinion consistent with injury having been sustained at work on or about

12 July 2022. I do have concerns about the length of delay in the applicant experiencing neck symptoms however, Dr Shahzad is cognisant of this delay and supports a causal link. The respondent was critical of his opinion because it was based upon his view that the mechanism of injury exerted forces on the spine. I find that Dr Shahzad does have a history of the incident that is fairly consistent with that taken by Dr Lam and related by the applicant in his statement. It seems it was the force of the heavy metal plate striking the applicant that he attributes to exerting forces sufficient to injure Mr Yu's neck. 7. The applicant also drew attention to the fact that Dr Lam did find tenderness in the right shoulder on 14 September 2022 and submitted that this shows the blow did not just cause a discrete injury to the chest/rib area. I accept this submission but had this been the only finding I would not necessarily place weight upon it. However, coupled with Dr Shahzad's objective findings on physical examination of the cervical spine and his opinion about causation I am satisfied that the applicant has discharged his onus of proof that on the balance of probabilities he did sustain an injury to his cervical spine in the workplace incident on or about 12 July 2022. The degree of impairment is a matter for a Medical Assessor. 8. Accordingly, I remit the lump sum claim to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess permanent impairment of the lumbar spine and cervical spine with a date of injury on or about 12 July 2022. The documents to be referred to a Medical Assessor are those attached to the ARD and Reply.