Compensation Court of New South Wales CITATION : Synadino v Supreme Paints [2001] NSWCC 119 revised - 04/09/2001 George Synadino PARTIES : v Supreme Paints MATTER NUMBER(S) : 38205 of 2000 JUDGMENT OF: Hughes J at 1 CATCHWORDS: Proceedings to Obtain Compensation - Statutes & Delegated Legislation :- LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 13/03/01 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 03/13/2001 FOR APPLICANT: Mr A Jamieson instructed by Christopher McGee and Associates. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: FOR RESPONDENT: Mr I McFarlane instructed by Pricewaterhousecoopers Legal. JUDGMENT: 1. In this case, Mr Synadino was involved in a truck accident on 24 March 1999, where he was hit from behind and according to Dr Hahn, his truck was a write-off. There were some radiological investigations which, as Mr Macfarlane said, are not totally convincing. The first CT scan report by Dr Spiegel finds that: The attention was directed in particular to C7. The vertebral body is abnormal, the lateral portion of this body shows alteration of its contour with a fracture line consistent with a compression-type fracture of the right lateral aspect, though without significant displacement. The appearances are consistent with a recent rather than old fracture of the vertebral body, though a follow-up examination may be worthwhile to confirm this. There is no suggestion that the fracture is unstable. The C6/7 disc is normal without evidence of disc protrusion or narrowing of the spinal canal or exit foramen. There is no abnormality seen in the region of the cervico-thoracic junction. The impression of Dr Spiegel was that the fracture of T7 is demonstrated mainly involving the right lateral aspects of the body of this segment and probably recent. Disc pathology is also noted at C3/4 level. 2. In Dr Hahn's report, a report of an x-ray which is not before me and the plain cervical x-ray showed abnormality and was reported as "old fracture" and Dr Hahn says: This is not consistent with my clinical assessment, as he has worsened on 1.4.99, which is very soon after the accident on 24.3.99, and a more definitive CT scan of the area in question was undertaken and this revealed a fracture at the C7 level. And again, what is consistent with the symptoms Mr Synadino describes is that it is on the right side. 3. Mr Macfarlane submitted that the subsequent CT scan of 29 November which is in evidence by Dr Silva, show that there is no bony abnormalities and there is no significant disc bulging and Mr Macfarlane urged upon me to conclude from that and the report of Dr Edwards, that the fracture if it was there had healed. 4. I am not satisfied that the applicant has exaggerated his symptoms. His symptoms are continuing today and I accept that he is a witness of truth insofar as he is still getting symptoms. I am not therefore convinced that the fracture or the pathology that is in his neck has healed. I am further persuaded by the report of Dr Giblin in particular, that he is able to assess the permanent impairment of parts of his body. 5. As Mr Macfarlane quite properly said, there was no contest as to injury, or at least no contest that the accident occurred, and I find, doing the best I can, I accept Dr Giblin as being a proper reflection of the permanent impairment of the applicant. 6. I therefore hereby order and award that the applicant be paid lump sum compensation under s 66 of: $10,000 in respect of 25 per cent permanent impairment of the applicant's neck; $8,000 in respect of 10 per cent permanent loss of use of the right arm at or above the elbow, it being his dominant arm; 7. that the respondent pay the applicant $5,000 in respect of s 67, being 10 per cent of a most extreme case; 8. the respondent pay the applicant's s 60 expenses; 9. the respondent pay the applicant's costs. Mr A G Jamieson instructed by Christopher McGee & Associates appeared for the applicant Mr I A Macfarlane instructed by Pricewaters Coopers Legal appeared for the respondent DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.