Sonic Health Plus Pty Ltd (EML) v Wong [2026] NSWPICPD 49. Ms Kylie Nomchong SC, ADP. 18.09.2026.
“The respondent worker (Dr Wong) was employed as a medical practitioner with the appellant (Sonic Health Plus Pty Ltd) with her first day at work being 4 July 2023.”
“The respondent worker injured her head, nose, jaw, right ear, neck, right arm and hand, left shoulder and left lower leg when a wall unit fell on to her at work on 4 July 2023.”
At [3] “It is alleged by the applicant that the worker’s death resulted from a compensable injury sustained during the course of his employment with the State of New South Wales – Fire and Rescue NSW (the respondent), in accordance with s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). The worker died from liver carcinoma, which resulted from a psychological injury contracted during the course of his employment with the respondent as a firefighter between 1987 and 2013,” Whiffin M said.
Then, in [8], “… the respondent agreed that it was liable to pay an amount of $929,200 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act; … the parties agreed to an order being made pursuant to s 109 of the 1998 Act – in relation to the applicant being entitled to interest of $15,997.51 if an award was made that she was the only person entitled to the amount of $929,200 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act, … the applicant requested a further order that the respondent pay her legal costs as agreed or assessed, and including a 15% complexity uplift, in accordance with Table 4, Item 4 to Schedule 6 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 (the Regulation) - the respondent consented to that order being made and asked that any uplift granted be available to both parties.”
Fulmen v Marshalls Sydney Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 528. Ms Rachel Homan, Senior Member. 09.09.2026.
“The applicant did not dispute that he had indicated that he would not attend a further medical examination. The applicant submitted that after four assessments, he could not psychologically withstand another assessment. The applicant asked the Commission to liaise with his treating psychiatrist instead. The applicant said he wished to resolve the proceedings, not abandon them,” [47].
“As noted above, the Medical Appeal Panel’s Medical Assessment Certificate certified that the applicant had not achieved maximum medical improvement. While the more recent treating evidence, including the most recent report of Dr Rastogi, can be admitted as evidence that the applicant has now achieved maximum medical improvement and form the basis of a new referral to a Medical Assessor, it cannot determine the medical dispute between the parties. The legislation requires that the medical dispute as to the degree of permanent impairment be resolved by a Medical Assessor,” [71].
McKenna v Incredible Transport NSW Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 527. Burge, M. 08.09.2026.
“The parties agree interest is payable on the benefit sum [$955,950] from 3 October 2025 to 4 September 2026 and is agreed to total $52,739.63. I accept those calculations as accurate,” [14].
6%pa.
On 14 May 2021, “Ms Rashem suffered a number of injuries when she tripped and fell in the course of her duty, all of which have been accepted except her claim for injury to the lumbar spine,” Mr Wynyard noted [2].
“This matter was heard in person on 5 August 2026. Ms Rashem was represented by Mr Ty Hickey of counsel instructed by Ms Catherine Le. The respondent was represented by Mr Adele Saleh who was instructed by Ms Samantha Torpey. Mr Paul Lleonart appeared for the insurer. An interpreter, Ms Norma Minnaway, was present as was Ms Rashem’s son, Samer Farhan,” [4].
Spooner v Woolworths Group Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 518. Mr Cameron Burge, Member. 01.09.2026.
After lifting incident four years ago, worker’s award for proposed lumbar laminectomy and fusion recommended by her treating neurosurgeon, Dr Huang, after hearing 31.08.2026.
“In his report dated 17 September 2025, Dr Huang diagnosed the applicant with an L5/S1 disc injury and spondylolisthesis. Dr Huang noted in this report that it had been a year since he had previously seen the applicant, during which time her symptoms had been worsening, including the onset of a limp. He noted the applicant was experiencing intermittent urinary incontinence and bilateral jolting in her lower limbs, especially when she is dozing off to sleep or changing positions when sleeping,” [25].
St George Christian School Limited v Ewels [2026] NSWPICPD 40. Phillips J. 31.08.2026.
The President, at [7] “Whilst the provisions of s 322A and s 329 of the 1998 Act sit uneasily with each other, namely the notion of a single assessment as against a subsequent reconsideration, I do not consider that this apparent conflict needs to be resolved in this decision. The respondent has received her single entitlement to a s 66 payment under the 1987 Act and is not indicating any desire to revisit that entitlement. Rather, the present purpose is twofold. It is firstly to ascertain if, after the recent and apparent deterioration in the respondent’s condition, her degree of permanent impairment is ascertainable. Secondly, to obtain the answer to the first purpose, it is necessary to have the original assessment reconsidered. Such evidence will be necessary to be available to the parties prior to any mediation in the Commission or contested hearing in the District Court. It is in the interests of justice that the respondent be permitted to have her recent health issues reviewed and their relationship (if any) to her cause of action be determined. In light of these matters, I decline to exercise my discretion to strike out the PFS.”
A: Ms A Holmes, solicitor, Gair Legal. R: Ms N Sarwar, solicitor, Law Partners.