Troy Townsend v CPB CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED

2025/00150256

WORKERS COMPENSATION – Troy Townsend (the appellant) was employed by CPB Contractors Pty Ltd (the respondent) as a construction worker from 3 July 2019 – on 21 January 2020 the appellant injured his right hip when the ground on which he was walking on subsided – the appellant resigned in October 2023 – in November 2023 the appellant sought weekly compensation for his hip injury from the respondent and an award in relation to his medical expenses for the treatment of his right hip – the New South Wales Personal Injury Commission (NSWPIC) determined that while the appellant sustained an injury to his right hip on 21 January 2020 in his time as employee for the respondent, the appellant did not suffer from any present incapacity for work resulting from his hip injury – the appellant challenged the Commissioner’s decision regarding the appellant’s incapacity due to the hip injury – the Acting Deputy President held that the appellant failed to persuade the NSWPIC that there was any difference in the appellant’s physical condition before and after his resignation – whether the Acting Deputy President erred in point of law when he failed properly to consider the submission that the Member had erred by only considering the appellant's incapacity as at September 2023 and not the period relevant to the claim which was 3 November 2023 to 28 May 2024 and continuing – whether the Acting Deputy President erred in point of law when he only considered the evidence about the appellant's ability to work as at September 2023 and did not consider the evidence of restrictions occurring after that date and in particular in the period from 3 November 2023 to 28 May 2024 and continuing – whether the Acting Deputy President erred in point of law when he said that the appellant did not challenge the finding that the appellant had been engaged in full time ordinary duties when it had been expressly put by the appellant that at no time had he resumed his pre-injury duties – whether the Acting Deputy President erred in point of law when he failed to consider the submission squarely put that the Member had failed to consider relevant evidence being the appellant's supplementary statement.