Workers compensation case note

Shlimon v Steric: deemed injury dates in a disease claim

Shlimon v Steric Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICPD 70 concerns the deemed date of injury for a disease and the valuation of a lump sum claim where a later disease injury augmented impairment from an initial injury.

Disease injury claim file with the initial and later injury chronology, impairment assessments and determination under review.

General information only. Disease deeming, aggregation and lump sum valuation depend on the statutory provisions, the accepted injuries and the medical evidence in the individual claim.

The first-instance result

The published PIC summary of Shlimon v Steric Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 252 records a dispute about the relevant date of injury for a lump sum claim where there was a further disease injury in the same employment. The Member considered Haddad and Ozcan.

The Member held that where the later injury augmented impairment resulting from the initial injury, the monetary value of the compensation entitlement was to be assessed using the initial injury date.

What happened on appeal

President Judge Phillips considered the disease deeming provision in section 15(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, sections 322(2) and 322(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, and the Court of Appeal decision in Ozcan v Macarthur Disability Services Ltd [2021] NSWCA 56.

The Certificate of Determination dated 4 June 2025 was confirmed, subject to one amendment: Order 2 was corrected by inserting the word “respiratory” immediately before “urinary”.

Why the date can affect a lump sum claim

A disease may develop or worsen over time, and the legislation can deem a date of injury for compensation purposes. A later worsening does not automatically mean that the latest date controls every aspect of the claim. The Commission must determine how the initial and later injuries relate and whether impairments are aggregated under section 322.

Shlimon is a specific example: the later injury was found to augment impairment resulting from the initial injury, so the initial injury date governed the monetary valuation. That conclusion cannot be applied to another disease claim without examining its accepted injuries, chronology and medical evidence.

What the appeal did not change

The appeal did not replace the initial injury date with the later disease date.
It did not establish that every later deterioration must be valued using an earlier date.
It did not change the Certificate of Determination apart from inserting “respiratory” into Order 2.
The result did not create a fixed WPI percentage for disease claims.

Evidence to organise when the deemed date is disputed

the employment and exposure chronology;
earlier claim, agreement and impairment documents;
medical records showing the initial condition and later progression;
the diagnoses and body systems included in each claim;
medical opinion on whether later impairment is separate or augments the initial impairment; and
the insurer's position on injury date, aggregation and valuation.

Frequently asked questions

What was the main first-instance finding?

The later disease injury augmented impairment resulting from the initial injury, so the monetary value of the lump sum entitlement was assessed using the initial injury date.

What changed on appeal?

Only Order 2 was amended, by inserting “respiratory” immediately before “urinary”. The determination was otherwise confirmed.

Does the newest date always control?

No. The statutory deeming and aggregation rules, and the relationship between the injuries, must be determined on the evidence.

Decisions and official summaries

Appeal decision date: 10 October 2025. Decision-maker: President Judge Phillips. Sources checked 21 July 2026.

Need a disease-injury chronology reviewed?

Send the earlier claim documents, later medical evidence and insurer position so the deemed-date and aggregation issues can be identified.

Request a claim check Call (02) 7233 3661