Why lump sum workers compensation claims are rarely straightforward

In NSW workers compensation, lump sum claims can turn on deceptively technical questions: is the condition an injury, a disease, a consequential condition, or part of a wider impairment that can be aggregated?

At the UNSW Edge Personal Injury Law Intensive, Sandra Aziz, Senior Associate and Accredited Specialist in Personal Injury at LHD Lawyers, examined how the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the 1998 Act shape permanent impairment claims involving multiple injuries, gradual disease processes and pre-existing conditions. She emphasised that deemed dates of injury under sections 15 and 16, particularly following Haddad and related decisions, can affect how a section 66 entitlement is calculated, especially where incapacity and impairment do not neatly align.

Aziz also traced the practical risks in aggregation and consequential condition claims, where causation, material contribution and the terms of a medical referral can determine whether impairments are assessed together. Cases including Ozcan, Barnes, Klement, Skates, Shankar and Sarkiss underscored a broader lesson for practitioners: review medico-legal reports closely, check WPI calculations, ensure all claimed body parts are included, and ask experts to address the real dispute rather than generic questions.

If this topic interests you, you can learn more and receive a CPD point in Substantive Law here