WorkCover Serious Injury Claim | Chandler v VWA
8 min read
24 February 2026
In Chandler v Victorian WorkCover Authority [2024] VCC 2051, the County Court of Victoria considered whether a worker’s permanent left shoulder condition and psychological injury satisfied the serious injury test for a WorkCover common law claim.
The Court granted Mr Chandler leave to commence proceedings for pain and suffering damages arising from his left shoulder injury. However, his separate serious injury claim based on a psychological condition was unsuccessful.
Background
On 21 June 2018, Mr Chandler injured his left knee while working at a hardware store. He lost his balance while loading timber onto racking and twisted his knee.
On 16 October 2018, while descending stairs at home, Mr Chandler’s injured left knee collapsed. He attempted to catch himself on the banister, wrenching both shoulders and striking his left shoulder and arm against the stairs.
Although his left knee and right shoulder conditions largely resolved, his left shoulder condition deteriorated. He was diagnosed with conditions including capsulitis, rotator cuff dysfunction and evolving arthritis.
Mr Chandler underwent extensive treatment, including:
steroid injections;
hydrodilatation procedures;
shoulder arthroscopy and subacromial decompression;
suprascapular nerve blocks;
radiofrequency treatment;
physiotherapy;
pain-management treatment; and
a ketamine infusion.
Despite this treatment, he continued to experience chronic pain, restricted movement and reduced function in his left shoulder.
What injuries did Mr Chandler rely upon?
Mr Chandler initially sought leave to commence common law proceedings in relation to injuries affecting his left knee, both shoulders, surgical scarring and a psychological injury.
At the hearing, he accepted that his left knee condition had resolved. His serious injury application was ultimately pursued on the basis of:
the permanent impairment of his left shoulder; and
a chronic adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood.
He sought leave to pursue pain and suffering damages only. He did not pursue damages for loss of earning capacity as part of this application.
Was the shoulder injury connected to his employment?
An important issue was whether the left shoulder injury was causally connected to Mr Chandler’s original workplace knee injury.
The Victorian WorkCover Authority argued that Mr Chandler did not complain of left shoulder pain until several months after the fall and that the contemporaneous medical records initially referred principally to his right shoulder.
The Court nevertheless accepted Mr Chandler’s evidence that both shoulders were painful after the fall, although the right shoulder and left knee were initially more significant.
The Court also relied on medical opinions supporting a connection between:
the compensable left knee injury;
the collapse of Mr Chandler’s knee on the stairs; and
the resulting left shoulder injury.
The Court was satisfied that Mr Chandler’s left shoulder impairment was causally related to his workplace knee injury.
Was the left shoulder condition permanent?
The Authority argued that Mr Chandler had not established permanence because the ketamine infusion had temporarily improved his pain and further treatment might provide additional benefits.
The Court rejected that argument.
Mr Chandler had undergone extensive treatment without lasting improvement. The medical evidence established that he suffered chronic left shoulder pain and significant functional limitations. His physiotherapist also reported that the benefit of the ketamine infusion had been short-lived and had not produced improved shoulder function.
The Court was therefore satisfied that the left shoulder impairment was long-term or permanent.
How did the shoulder injury affect Mr Chandler?
The Court accepted Mr Chandler as a straightforward witness and accepted his evidence concerning the consequences of his injury.
Despite taking prescription medication and up to six Panadol Osteo tablets each day, Mr Chandler continued to experience substantial pain. His shoulder condition:
regularly disturbed his sleep;
restricted his domestic and outdoor activities;
prevented him from gardening;
limited his ability to drive longer distances;
reduced the time he could spend walking his dogs;
affected his ability to play with his grandson;
prevented him from playing competitive lawn bowls;
adversely affected his relationship and intimacy with his partner; and
prevented him from pursuing his plan to travel around Australia in a motorhome.
The loss of lawn bowls was particularly significant. Before the injury, Mr Chandler had practised daily and competed at a high level, including in State competition.
The Court found that the pain and suffering consequences of his permanent left shoulder impairment were sufficiently serious when compared with other cases involving permanent impairment of a body function.
Why did the psychological serious injury claim fail?
Two psychiatrists diagnosed Mr Chandler with a chronic adjustment disorder involving anxiety and depressed mood. The Court accepted that the condition was connected with his ongoing pain and physical restrictions.
The Court also accepted Mr Chandler’s evidence about his psychological symptoms, including his social withdrawal and relationship difficulties.
However, the evidence supporting this part of the application was described as “very limited”. The Court was not satisfied that the pain and suffering consequences of the psychological condition met the narrative test required for a serious injury.
This aspect of Mr Chandler’s application was therefore unsuccessful.
What did the Court decide?
The Court granted Mr Chandler leave to commence proceedings for pain and suffering damages in respect of the left shoulder injury resulting from his compensable left knee injury.
Importantly, this decision did not award Mr Chandler damages. It permitted him to commence a common law damages proceeding.
What does this case mean for injured workers?
The decision demonstrates that:
an injury suffered away from work may still be legally connected to an earlier compensable workplace injury;
a worker can succeed where a workplace injury causes a later fall and further injury;
pre-existing degenerative changes do not necessarily prevent a successful claim if the work-related event aggravated those changes or caused an additional injury;
delayed complaints recorded in clinical notes do not automatically defeat causation;
the worker’s own evidence about pain, sleep, relationships and lost activities can be important;
unsuccessful treatment and a poor prognosis can help establish permanence; and
psychological serious injury claims are assessed separately and face a higher threshold than physical impairment claims.
Each WorkCover serious injury application depends on its particular facts, medical evidence and the consequences experienced by the injured worker.
Speak with a Melbourne WorkCover lawyer
If a workplace injury has caused permanent pain, reduced function or a significant loss of quality of life, you may be entitled to pursue a WorkCover common law claim.
Bastion Legal assists injured workers with WorkCover serious injury applications and common law claims across Melbourne and Victoria. Contact us to discuss your circumstances and the compensation options that may be available.
How we can assist…
At Bastion Legal, we help everyday Australians navigate complex legal issues with practical, straightforward advice. Our team is dedicated to resolving disputes, protecting rights, and achieving fair outcomes. Whatever challenge you’re facing, we provide clear guidance, strong representation, and practical solutions tailored to your situation.
If you’re facing a situation like the one discussed above, you do not need to face these issues alone. We’re here to protect your interests and work towards the outcome you deserve.
Contact us today for a free consultation and take the next step with confidence.