Legal Bulletin No. 151
This bulletin was issued on 8 March 2024
Issued 8 March 2024
Welcome to the one hundred and fifty first edition of the Personal Injury Commission’s Legal Bulletin. Please see here for details about the legal citations used for the Commission’s decisions. The decisions listed below are now available on AustLII and will be available shortly, on Jade and Lexis Nexis. Any legislative updates are provided at the base of the Bulletin.
Presidential Member Decision
Cayir v Woolworths Group Ltd; Woolworths Group Ltd v Cayir [2024] NSWPICPD 13
Workers compensation; the ‘disease’ provisions; sections 15 and 16 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; the need to prove ‘injury’ within the meaning of section 4(b) of the 1987 Act, application of Crisp v Chapman (1994) 10 NSWCCR 492 and associated authorities; Held –Certificate of Determination (as amended) dated 28 March 2023 is revoked; matter is remitted to a different member for re-determination.
Decision date: 29 February 2024 | Before: Deputy President Michael Snell
Motor Accidents non-Presidential Member Decisions
Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Bray [2024] NSWPIC 78
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; settlement approval in the sum of $200,139.38; 58-year-old female; past and future economic loss only; no entitlement to non-economic loss; 5% whole person impairment; injuries include neck, lower back, right elbow and psychological; fear of driving; loss of opportunity; buffer for future economic loss; section 6.23; Held – proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable; settlement approved.
Decision date: 22 February 2024 | Member: Shana Radnan
AAI Limited t/as GIO v Morgan [2024] NSWPIC 86
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant involved in an accident whilst entering an intersection and sustained injuries to her ribs and back; whole person impairment assessment not greater than 10%; claimant developed anxiety; otherwise made a good recovery from injuries; ongoing back and psychological symptoms; proposed settlement includes past and future economic loss; claimant been retired for years and in receipt of disability benefit; proposed settlement will net the claimant $20,000 subject to a Centrelink clearance; ongoing entitlement to reasonable future treatment for accident-related injuries; Held – proposed settlement approved under section 6.23(2)(b); proposed settlement complies with clause 7.38 of the Motor Accident Injuries Guidelines 2017.
Decision date: 27 February 2024 | Member: Elyse White
Debono v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2024] NSWPIC 87
Assessment of damages; liability wholly admitted; impact of collision caused claimant’s vehicle to flip; claimant panicked as he had difficulty releasing the seatbelt; injuries included cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, and psychological symptoms; damages limited to past and future economic loss; claimant employed as a project manager which required long drives in the country and interstate; employer regarded the claimant as a high achiever and rewarded him with a company car and remuneration; Covid-19 assisted as he could work from home which is continuing; claimant concerned about his future prospects due to a company restructure; Held – damages for past economic loss limited to statutory benefits paid by insurer and a $150,000 buffer for future economic loss and superannuation taking into account the extent of the claimant’s injuries and a reasonable expectation of an increase of incapacity.
Decision date: 27 February 2024 | Member: Elyse White
Workers Compensation non-Presidential Member Decisions
Noble v Petuha [2024] NSWPIC 79
Claim for lump sum death benefit by mother of deceased; deceased, who was 16 years old, was engaged in a work trial when she was killed in a motor vehicle accident during her lunch break; applicant claimed to have been partly dependent on deceased; consideration of Cabra-Vale Ex-Active Servicemen’s Club Ltd v Thompson, Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd, Dietrich v Dare, Drzyzga v G & B Silver Pty Ltd, and Birkett v Tubbo Estate Co Pty Ltd; the arrangement between the deceased and the respondent lacked “the element of mutuality of obligation” essential to formation of a contract; no obligation on deceased to perform any work, or on respondent to provide it; deceased was not a worker employed by the respondent at the date of her death; Held – award for the respondent.
Decision date: 23 February 2024 | Senior Member: Kerry Haddock
Gidlow v The Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer & Ors [2024] NSWPIC 82
Workers Compensation Act 1987; dispute between uninsured respondent and Nominal Insurer as to whether he was an “exempt employer” within section 155AA(1) at date of workers injury; Kula Systems Pty Limited v Nominal Insurer considered and applied; viewed objectively there were reasonable grounds for the uninsured to believe that his wages bill would not exceed $7,500; Held – Nominal Insurer ordered to pay the worker compensation on the basis that an exempt employer policy was in force at the date of injury.
Decision date: 26 February 2024 | Member: Paul Sweeney
Paterson v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2024] NSWPIC 83
Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim by the applicant for lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66 for psychological injury as a result of multiple traumatic exposures, bullying and harassment he experienced while employed as a police officer by the respondent; the applicant was charged with and convicted of serious criminal offences as a result of interaction with a police colleague with whom he worked; the applicant claimed that the PTSD from which he suffered as a result of the traumatic exposures to which he had been subject during his long police career was the reason he committed the offences with which he was charged; this was supported by the independent medical examiner on whose evidence he relied; the respondent defended the applicant’s claim, relying on sections 4, 9A, 11A and 14(2); extensive review of the lay and medical evidence, including details of the charges proffered against that applicant and the conviction on such charges; no issue that that action taken by the respondent against the applicant was not reasonable; the only section 11A issue was whether the psychological injury from which the applicant was wholly or predominantly caused by such reasonable action; finding that the applicant’s psychological injury was predominantly caused by the reasonable action taken with respect to discipline; in view of that finding, no necessity to consider the defence raised under section 14(2); Held – award for the respondent.
Decision date: 26 February 2024 | Member: Brett Batchelor
Jones v Cushman and Wakefield Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 84
Workers Compensation Act 1987; permanent impairment claim in respect of psychological injury; respondent relies on section 11A in respect of discipline, transfer, retrenchment and dismissal; whether conduct relied on was the whole or predominant cause of the applicant’s condition; Held – the applicant suffered a psychological injury in the course of his employment with the respondent; the injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by the reasonable actions of the respondent relied on; rather, the cause of the condition was multi-factorial; matter remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine whole person impairment.
Decision date: 26 February 2024 | Member: Cameron Burge
Tran v The Henry Schein Regional Trust ATF The Henry Schein Regional Trust [2024] NSWPIC 85
Claim for proposed right shoulder surgery; whether surgery reasonably necessary as a result of work injury, in light of applicant’s pre-existing issues in effected body system; the applicant had previously suffered a non-work injury to the right shoulder in approximately 2015, for which he was placed on the hospital waiting list for the repair of a SLAP tear; the applicant removed himself from the hospital waiting list and continued working; on 11 October 2022 he suffered a work injury to his right shoulder; after the work injury, the applicant consulted Associate Professor Nabavi who recommended a biceps tenotomy; the respondent argued the requirement for the proposed surgery was brought about by the pre-existing pathology rather than the work injury; Held – the need for the proposed surgery was brought about by the work injury, not the pre-existing pathology; the proposed surgery is different to that for which the applicant was placed on the waiting list for after the earlier, non-work injury; the proposed surgery is reasonably necessary as a result of the work injury; respondent to pay the costs of and incidental to the proposed surgery.
Decision date: 26 February 2024 | Member: Cameron Burge
Makdessi v Millennium Security Specialist Services Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 88
Workers Compensation Act 1987; compensation for accepted psychological injury to a security guard stood down after a security breach at a shopping mall; section 11A defence; discipline; Northern NSW Local Health Network v Heggie and Department of Education and Training v Sinclair referred to; relevance of request of shopping centre owner; Jeffery v Lintipal Pty Ltd referred to; Held – award for the respondent.
Decision date: 27 February 2024 | Member: Catherine McDonald
Workers Compensation Act 1987; application pursuant to section 145(3) for determination of uninsured employer’s liability to reimburse the Insurance Fund; injured worker who is a resident of South Australia joined to the proceedings; whether it is arguable that in determining the application the Commission would exercise federal jurisdiction; section 154A; whether the Nominal Insurer is the State for the purposes of section 75(iv) of the Constitution; whether the matter is “between” the State and a resident of another State; whether the matter “concerns a claim for compensation” for the purposes of section 26 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020; whether the Commission would be exercising judicial power in determining the application; Held – it is arguable that in determining the application the Commission would exercise federal jurisdiction; proceedings stood over pending an application to the District Court.
Decision date: 27 February 2024 | Member: Rachel Homan
Borja v Kolder Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 90
Injury to left shoulder disputed including a dispute as to substantial contributing factor; dispute as to the giving of notice of injury pursuant to section 254 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act); claim for weekly compensation pursuant to sections 36 and 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act); sections 254, 255 of the 1998 Act, sections 4, 9A,36, 37, 60 of the 1987 Act, and section 43(2) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 referred to; Onesteel Reinforcing Pty Ltd v Sutton, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Trustees of the Society of St Vincent de Paul (NSW) v Maxwell James Kear as administrator of the estate of Anthony John Kear, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May, Taylor v J & D Stephens Pty Ltd, Perry v Tanine Pty Ltd t/as Ermington Hotel , Cabramatta Motor Body Repairers (NSW) Pty Limited v Raymond & Pegrin Pty Ltd, Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch , Cant v Catholic Schools Office, AV v AW, Ariton Mitic v Rail Corporation of NSW, and Mason v Demasi referred to; Held – that the applicant sustained injury to his left shoulder in the course of his employment with the respondent on 26 November 2020; that the applicant’s employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury sustained on 26 November 2020; that the applicant gave notice of his injury on 26 November 2020 in accordance with section 254 of the 1998 Act; that the applicant was totally incapacitated for work from 23 February 2021 for a period of 130 weeks as a result of the injury sustained to his left shoulder in the course of his employment with the respondent on 26 November 2020.
Decision date: 27 February 2024 | Member: John Turner
Lelov v Blacktown City Council [2024] NSWPIC 91
Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly compensation; causation; degree of incapacity; Held – academic vocational assessment not capable of reality testing in the labour market; the evidence on balance discloses the applicant remains totally incapacitated for employment; respondent ordered to pay the applicant weekly compensation pursuant to section 37 and section 38.
Decision date: 28 February 2024 | Member: Diana Benk
Chislett v State of New South Wales (Hunter New England Local Health District) [2024] NSWPIC 92
Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for psychological injury; claims for weekly benefits compensation and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60; consideration of applicant’s and witnesses’ statements, medical reports and other treatment records, claim correspondence, and factual material; consideration of whether the applicant sustained a psychological injury in accordance with section 4 as a result of employment events occurring during the course of her employment with the respondent between 21 February 2022 and 28 July 2022; AV v, Commissioner for Railways v Bain, Fletcher International Exports Pty Limited v Barrow & Anor, Perry v Tanine Pty Limited t/as Ermington Hotel, and Attorney General’s Department v K considered; consideration of whether the respondent can establish (pursuant to section 11A) that the applicant's psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by it with respect to transfer, discipline, performance appraisal or the provision of employment benefits; Pirie v Franklins Limited, Department of Education and Training v Sinclair, Manly Pacific International Hotel Pty Limited v Doyle, Insurance Australia Group Services Pty Limited v Outram, Ponnan v George Weston Foods Limited, Temelkov v Kemblawarra Portugese Sports and Social Club Limited, Smith v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW, and Hamad v Q Catering Limited considered; consideration of whether (and if so, to what extent) the applicant has been incapacitated for work as a result of her psychological injury, since 28 July 2022; Wollongong Nursing Home Pty Limited v Dewar, ACW v ACX, and Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez considered; Held – the applicant sustained injury in accordance with section 4(b)(ii), being the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, or deterioration of her psychological condition in the course of her employment with the respondent, and to which that employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, or deterioration of the condition; the respondent has failed to establish its defence under section 11A; the applicant has had no current work capacity since 28 July 2022 and is entitled to awards pursuant to sections 36(1) and 37(1) in this regard; the applicant is also entitled to an award in relation to her reasonably necessary treatment expenses pursuant to section 60.
Decision date: 28 February 2024 | Member: Gaius Whiffin
Motor Accidents Medical Review Panel Decisions
AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Blankson [2024] NSWPICMP 87
Claimant suffered injury in a motor accident on 23 March 2018 when her vehicle was hit from behind by the insured Toyota Hilux; dispute whether psychological injury was a threshold injury; whether there was any pre-existing psychological condition; where the Medical Assessor at first instance found that the psychological injury (panic disorder) was a non-threshold injury; Held – original assessment revoked; finding that the claimant’s psychological injury fulfilled the DSM-5-TR criteria for a diagnosis of specific phobia which is a non-threshold injury.
Decision date: 19 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Maurice Castagnet, Dr Michael Hong, and Dr Glen Smith | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural
Habib v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2024] NSWPICMP 96
Claimant was a front seat passenger in a car driven by his wife when it left the road and hit a tree; he suffered a fractured upper arm and a number of soft tissue injuries; Held – original medical certificate set aside regarding degree of permanent impairment; on review, the Panel found a total whole person impairment of 7% for left shoulder/arm; soft tissue injury with healed proximal humeral fracture; the other soft tissue injuries had resolved and the motor vehicle accident did not materially contribute to any right shoulder condition nor exacerbate any such condition; because left and right shoulder range of motion measurements at examination were inconsistent they cannot be used as a valid parameter of impairment evaluation; the Panel used its discretion in considering what weight to give other available evidence to determine if an impairment was present.
Decision date: 19 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Ray Plibersek, Dr Sophia Lahz, and Dr Margaret Gibson | Injury module: Spine, Brain Injury, Upper and Lower Limb
AAI Limited t/as GIO v Adnan [2024] NSWPICMP 89
Claimant’s brother killed in Australia in a motor vehicle accident; claimant lived overseas and later travelled to Australia.; claimant reported psychological injury caused by her brother’s death; original certificate found the claimant’s injuries were persistent depressive disorder with persistent major depressive episode and gave rise to a permanent impairment of 13%; Held – original medical certificate revoked; claimant did not sustain any psychological injury as a result of or caused by her brother’s death in the motor accident; claimant’s reported and demonstrated level of functioning, ability to support herself and to be independent in her day-to-day care, is not consistent with a psychiatric diagnosis; claimant did not meet criteria for a DSM-5 psychiatric diagnosis.
Decision date: 19 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Ray Plibersek, Dr Paul Friend, and Dr Matthew Jones | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural
Moscarello v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2024] NSWPICMP 90
Review of medical assessment; whole person impairment; 9% not greater than 10%; reasonable cause to suspect medical assessment review is incorrect bilateral anterior shoulder pain; decline in range of motion with repetition of movement; criteria for cervicothoracic DREII; inconsistent range of motion; Held – certificate revoked.
Decision date: 22 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Hugh Macken, Dr Les Barnsley, and Dr Sophia Lahz | Injury module: Spine and Upper Limb
Karroum v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2024] NSWPICMP 91
Claimant suffered injury in a motor accident on 28 December 2019 when her vehicle was rear-ended by the insured taxi cab; dispute about the assessment of permanent impairment to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder and left shoulder; claimant re-examined by Review Panel; where the Review Panel found that there was no initial injury to left shoulder but a consequential injury as a result of overuse of left upper extremity; pressure effect from the weight of sling on left brachial plexus region following two surgeries to the right shoulder; where the Review Panel found that the combined assessment of all body parts assessed was the same as found in the original assessment (9%); where the original assessment had to be revoked on the basis that the Review Panel made different findings on each individual body part assessed; Held – original assessment of 9% revoked and replacement certificate issued.
Decision date: 22 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Maurice Castagnet, Dr Christopher Oates, and Dr Les Barnsley | Injury module: Spine and Upper Limb
Karbajha v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2024] NSWPICMP 93
Motor vehicle accident on 13 August 2019; review of determination of injuries as threshold and non-threshold; Held – Certificate by Medical Assessor (MA) Cameron certifying that five injuries, all soft-tissue, were threshold injuries; revocation of determination by MA Cameron that the lumbar spinal injury was a threshold injury, for the reason that the Panel certified that the annular disruption at L5/S1, a broad-disc bulge with a right paracentral component, and peripheral hyperintensity in the disc, is a non-threshold injury.
Decision date: 22 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Terence Stern OAM, Dr Christopher Oates, and Dr Sophia Lahz | Injury module: Upper Limb, Spine, and Brain Injury
Workers Compensation Medical Appeal Panel Decisions
Simpson v Bunnings Group Limited [2024] NSWPICMP 94
Appeal from assessment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS); whether criteria for CRPS were satisfied; worker referred for examination by medical member of the Appeal Panel; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.
Decision date: 22 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Richard Perrignon, Dr David Crocker, and Dr James Bodel | Body system: Chronic Pain (Right Upper Extremity)
Eurobodalla Shire Council v Grimstone [2024] NSWPICMP 95
Appeal in respect of the impairment assessment for right upper extremity; appellant employer appealed submitting that the Medical Assessor (MA) should not have made a diagnosis of a brachial plexus lesion and in addition failed to properly consider whether a deductible proportion applied; the Appeal Panel held that the diagnosis of a brachial plexus lesion was open to the MA; the Appeal Panel found that the question of the deduction was not properly considered and a one-tenth deduction should have been applied; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.
Decision date: 22 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Jane Peacock, Dr John Brian Stephenson, and Dr Gregory McGroder| Body system: Spine and Right Upper Extremity
Campbell-Ellis v Interrelate Limited [2024] NSWPICMP 97
Assessment of the degree of permanent impairment from psychological injury; whether Medical Assessor (MA) erred in finding appellant had not achieved maximum medical improvement; whether MA erred by having regard to likely change in appellant’s social circumstances as well as likely change in treatment when considering whether appellant had achieved maximum medical improvement; Appeal Panel found MA did not make any error; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.
Decision date: 22 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Marshal Douglas, Dr Douglas Andrews, and Dr Ash Takyar | Body system: Psychological/Psychiatric
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; assessment of upper extremities where Medical Assessor observed inconsistency on repeated testing; assessment by analogy; allowance for activities of daily living in respect of cervical spine; section 323 deduction where one complaint of pain before employment commenced; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.
Decision date: 26 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Catherine McDonald, Dr Drew Dixon, and Dr Andrew Porteous | Body system: Spine, Left and Right Upper Extremity
Bunnings Group Limited v Kennedy [2024] NSWPICMP 100
Appeal from decision of Medical Assessor (MA); whether assessment made on basis of incorrect criteria and contains a demonstrable error; the dispute referred to the Medical Assessor by the Commission was for bilateral upper extremities; the Medical Assessor included in his assessment a component for bilateral shoulders, however, the respondent’s claim was not made in relation to any shoulder impairment; the appellant employer appealed; the respondent opposed the appeal and also sought leave to amend the claim to plead a bilateral shoulder impairment; Held – leave to amend refused; to allow an amendment post-Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) in circumstances where the appellant did not have the opportunity to examine and assess the shoulders would be against the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice; the MAC contains a demonstrable error and was decided on incorrect criteria; MAC dated 23 August 2023 revoked, and a new Certificate issued.
Decision date: 26 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Cameron Burge, Dr James Bodel, and Dr Alan Home | Body system: Left Upper Extremity
Westpac Banking Corporation v Miller [2024] NSWPICMP 101
Appellant alleged error in the assessment under two of the categories under the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, namely, concentration, persistence and pace and employability; the rating of class 3 in each class were open to the Medical Assessor and the Panel could discern no error; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.
Decision date: 26 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Jane Peacock, Dr Michael Hong, and Dr Douglas Andrews | Body system: Psychological/Psychiatric
Westpac Banking Corporation v Attia [2024] NSWPICMP 102
Appeal sought re-examination on basis of demonstrable error alleged to be the failure to adequately explain how impairment related to injury; diagnosis of injury and impairment assessment adequately explained and open to the Medical Assessor; the Appeal Panel could discern no error; no power to re-examine absent a finding of error; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.
Decision date: 27 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Jane Peacock, Dr Margaret Gibson, and Dr Neil Berry | Body system: Spine and Right Upper Extremity
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; assessment of three separate injuries; no issue with assessment or apportionment made by Medical Assessor; section 323 deduction; Cole v Wenaline Pty Ltd, Ryder v Sundance Bakehouse, and Fire and Rescue NSW v Clinen referred to; relevance of radiological and surgical findings; one-tenth deduction appropriate – Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.
Decision date: 27 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Catherine McDonald, Dr Drew Dixon, and Dr Brian Stephenson| Body system: Left and Right Upper Extremity, Spine, and Scarring
Labour Logistics Pty Ltd & Ors v Alexander [2024] NSWPICMP 105
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal in respect of section 323 deduction; the Medical Assessor (MA) made a one-tenth deduction and it was submitted on appeal that the deduction was inadequate and inadequately reasoned in circumstances where two prior injuries resulting in surgery; worker conceded that one prior injury prior to employment to be taken into account in the deductible proportion but the second injury was within the period of employment claimed in the Application to Resolve a Dispute; it is not for the MA or Medical Appeal Panel to wade into a dispute about liability; the MA has made an assessment based upon the injury referred to him and the Appeal Panel could discern no error; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.
Decision date: 27 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Jane Peacock, Dr Brian John Stephenson, and Dr Drew Dixon | Body system: Spine and Scarring - TEMSKI
Briel v Woolworths Group Limited [2024] NSWPICMP 106
Appeal from nil whole person impairment (WPI) assessment; whether Medical Assessor (MA) contradicted the terms of the referral; whether MA received additional material forwarded by appellant after he had earlier found no MMI; whether adequate reasons given for assessment; Held – appellant submissions misconceived; MA complied with terms of referral; MA self-evidently received additional material in order for him to find that MMI had been reached: Appeal Panel reviewed evidence and confirmed that all additional material had been forwarded; however, adequate reasons not given for WPI assessment; evidence reviewed by Panel; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.
Decision date: 28 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr Neil Berry, and Dr Mark Burns| Body system: Inflammatory Bowel Syndrome
McKellar v J Basile & D Lavalle trading as Fortuna Fisheries [2024] NSWPICMP 107
Whether Medical Assessor (MA) provided adequate reasons for various findings he made and for assessment; whether MA overlooked evidence; Appeal Panel found that MA explained his reasons for his assessment and the assessment was correct and made by reference to correct criteria; MA did not overlook evidence; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate upheld.
Decision date: 28 February 2024 | Panel Members: Member Marshal Douglas, Dr Robin Fitzsimons, and Dr Mark Burns| Body system: Spine, Left and Right Upper Extremity, Right Lower Extremity, and Nervous System
This publication is for information only. The publication is not legal advice. The information provided is not a substitute for reading the decisions. The Commission does not accept liability for the information in this publication or for way the information is used.
Subscribeto receive legal bulletins to your inbox.