Shlimon v Steric [2025] NSWPICPD 70: deemed date of injury in disease claims

Quick answer

The appeal failed on the main issue. President Judge Phillips held that the worker's later impairments were to be assessed as resulting from the earlier 3 November 2004 injury, so the section 66 valuation remained anchored to that earlier deemed date. The only successful appeal point was a correction to the orders so that the respiratory system was expressly included.

Case overview

• Forum: Personal Injury Commission of NSW, Presidential appeal
• Decision-maker: President Judge Phillips
• Appeal decision date: 10 October 2025
• Citation: Shlimon v Steric Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICPD 70
• Insurer: icare Workers Insurance
• Main issue: deemed date of injury for section 66 valuation in a disease claim involving progression and aggregation

What happened before the appeal?

The worker had been employed by Steric since 1993 in physically demanding duties including lifting, bending, and forklift driving. He had brought an earlier lump sum claim in 2006 which resolved by agreement on the basis of 10% whole person impairment, with a specified date of injury of 3 November 2004.

He later brought fresh proceedings claiming much higher permanent impairment across multiple body systems, including left upper extremity, right lower extremity, lumbar spine, respiratory, urinary and reproductive systems. Medical assessors reached a combined assessment of 46% WPI, but the legal dispute remained over which deemed date should be used to value the compensation.

What the first instance Member decided

The Member found there was an earlier deemed injury on 3 November 2004 and a further injury with a deemed date of 22 July 2020. But the Member also found that the 2004 injury materially contributed to the further 2020 injury, with the result that impairment from the later injury was to be assessed as resulting from the 2004 injury.

In practical terms, that meant the monetary compensation payable under section 66 was to be calculated by reference to the 2004 date, not the later 2020 date.

What was argued on appeal?

• The worker argued that the Member misapplied Ozcan v Macarthur Disability Services Ltd [2021] NSWCA 56.
• The worker argued that disease deeming under section 15 should have led to assessment at the later deemed date, effectively treating the later culmination as the controlling point.
• The worker also argued that the Member had omitted the respiratory system from the formal orders despite finding that consequential injury.

Why the appeal mostly failed

The Presidential Member held that the appeal could not escape the combined effect of disease deeming principles and the aggregation reasoning drawn from Ozcan. The crucial factual finding was that the later impairments resulted from the earlier 2004 injury pathway and that incapacity had been present from 2004 onward.

Because the later progression was found to result from the earlier injury, the Commission held that the earlier deemed date remained the relevant date for assessment. Grounds One and Two therefore failed.

The one point the worker won

The worker succeeded on Ground Three. The respondent accepted that the orders appeared to omit the respiratory system even though the Member had found that consequential injury. The Presidential Member corrected the order by inserting the word “respiratory” before “urinary” in Order 2.

Why this case matters for workers

This is not just a technical appeal point. In disease claims, the difference between an earlier and later deemed date can change the statutory compensation table applied to a lump sum WPI claim. If an insurer says your current impairment is really part of an earlier injury pathway, that can materially affect valuation.

The decision also shows why date issues should be mapped early, ideally before the matter is sent for medical assessment. The Presidential Member expressly noted that this issue should have been resolved or decided well before the referral to the medical assessors.

Plain-English takeaway

If your injury worsened over many years, do not assume the latest date automatically controls your payout. The real question may be whether the later impairment is legally treated as progression from an earlier injury. That is a dispute about chronology, incapacity, causation, and statutory framing, not just medical percentages.

What to gather if deemed date is in dispute

• A full chronology of symptoms, work restrictions, and any reduction in hours or overtime.
• Prior settlement documents or section 66A agreements showing earlier injury dates and impairment outcomes.
• Medical records that track worsening over time rather than only the final presentation.
• Referral material sent to medical assessors, so you can check whether the date issue was framed correctly from the start.
• Any insurer position that argues your current impairment is part of an earlier injury pathway.

Related reading for this issue

If this problem sounds familiar, the most useful next reads are our guides to section 66 lump sum compensation, WPI assessment, and the PIC disputes process. If the dispute is already affecting strategy, our workers compensation services overview explains where a matter like this usually sits.

Frequently asked questions

Decision source

Read the full decision: Shlimon v Steric Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICPD 70.