Jajaw v NSW Police: consequential cervical treatment

The published holding

The official PIC summary records that the worker had an accepted psychological injury and claimed section 60 expenses for a consequential cervical spine condition. There had been an earlier motor vehicle accident for which damages were paid for a neck injury, and a section 151A argument was raised.

Member Michael Wright found that the worker suffered a separate consequential cervical spine condition after the motor vehicle accident. An award was made for the worker under section 60.

Why the word “separate” matters

The result should not be reduced to a rule that a prior damages claim never matters. The distinction identified in the published summary was that the cervical condition accepted in the workers compensation proceeding was separate and later, and was consequential to the accepted psychological injury.

If the present condition were the same injury for which damages had already been recovered, the section 151A issue could operate differently. Jajaw therefore turns on the medical and factual separation between the earlier neck injury and the later consequential condition.

Evidence that may help distinguish the conditions

• records of the earlier accident, diagnosed injury, treatment and damages claim;
• the date and scope of the accepted psychological injury;
• a chronology showing when the later cervical condition developed;
• medical opinion addressing whether the later condition is separate and consequential;
• clinical findings and treatment recommendations for the later condition; and
• the insurer's precise reason for disputing section 60 liability.

What the decision does not establish

• It does not make every physical symptom after psychological injury compensable.
• It does not make a prior accident or damages recovery irrelevant.
• It does not remove the need to prove the consequential condition and the section 60 entitlement claimed.
• The official summary does not identify a general rule for any particular treatment item or amount.

If an insurer says the condition is pre-existing

Ask for the insurer's reasons in writing and identify whether the dispute is about diagnosis, causation, the relationship to an accepted injury, reasonable necessity or the effect of an earlier damages recovery. A treating report is more useful when it addresses that precise issue rather than merely repeating that treatment is recommended.

Where the claim involves an earlier accident, the report should distinguish the earlier injury from the later condition using history, clinical findings and chronology. The decision in Jajaw was fact-specific and should not be treated as a substitute for that evidence.

Frequently asked questions

Decision and official summary

• PIC Legal Bulletin No. 253
• Jajaw v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2026] NSWPIC 166
• Section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987
• Section 151A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987

Decision date: 16 March 2026. Decision-maker: Member Michael Wright. Sources checked 21 July 2026.