Coles shopper loses battle for compensation after slipping on lettuce
- Replies 18
A woman from Melbourne who said she hurt her knee and back when she slipped on a piece of lettuce at the grocery store has lost her legal case.
Kanwaleen Bhelley alleged that the event at the Coles shop in Wyndham Vale in May 2020 caused her to suffer a Whole Person Impairment (WPI) of more than five per cent.
Whole Person Impairment (WPI) is a rating system that is used to determine the severity of a person's serious injury. In simpler terms, it is a way to figure out how much of their 'personality' or 'behaviour' has been permanently changed by their physical or mental accident.
The medical evaluations that Ms Bhelley obtained support her assertion that the fall caused her impairment to a greater extent than five per cent.
However, the grocery chain did not believe these reports and instead referred the matter to a medical panel, which evaluated the woman in 2021.
Ms Bhelley said that she hurt her knee and back because she tripped over a piece of lettuce. Credit: News.com.au.
According to the medical examiners, Ms Bhelley's ageing and the subsequent therapy for her right knee contributed to the degeneration of her spine and sacroiliac joints.
The panel reached the conclusion that her condition was stable and that she did not have sufficient WPI to qualify for compensation.
So, the 43-year-old woman filed an appeal against the decision with the Victorian Supreme Court, saying that the panel made mistakes about its jurisdiction.
The court documents say: 'In particular, she alleges that, in finding that her injuries did not satisfy the threshold level, the Panel either did not apply the Guides; mistook or misapplied the provisions of the Guides; or made a finding that was not open to it, or which was unreasonable.'
'Mrs Bhelley submitted that, absent such error, the panel would have determined that her degree of whole person impairment resulting from her spinal injury was 5 per cent, satisfying the significant injury threshold and in turn entitling her to claim noneconomic loss damages.'
Coles rejected the initial report and forwarded it to a medical panel, which found Ms Bhelley's injuries did not warrant compensation. Credit: News.com.au.
Ms Bhelley said that the injuries she got when she fell in the supermarket in 2020 affected her immensely, made it hard for her to move around, and kept her from going to concerts and her temple.
In addition, she claimed she could only drive for an hour at a time before her lower back started to hurt and that she avoided running because she thought it might hurt her right knee.
'She can stand for about 10 minutes before she has to stretch her back,' the panel wrote in their report.
'She can walk for about 30 minutes, (but) after about 500m, she notices mild right knee pain, so stops walking to sit or stand for about 10 minutes. She can traverse stairs without difficulty, using alternate stair treads for both ascending and descending, with no lower back or right knee issues.'
Even though it has been two years since Ms Bhelley's fall, Judge Andrea Tsalamandris acknowledged that she may still be experiencing symptoms or complaints related to the incident.
In her ruling on Friday, however, she concluded that the panel had not made any mistakes in their evaluation, and she thus dismissed the woman's appeal.
'It was open to the panel to determine that Ms Bhelley's complaints and symptoms were most appropriately categorised,' Judge Tsalamandris wrote in her decision.
'I am not satisfied that there was a jurisdictional error made by the panel, and therefore dismiss this application.'
So, what do you think, folks? Do you feel that Ms Bhelley deserved compensation? Or is she putting too much blame on the store? Let us know in the comments!
Kanwaleen Bhelley alleged that the event at the Coles shop in Wyndham Vale in May 2020 caused her to suffer a Whole Person Impairment (WPI) of more than five per cent.
Whole Person Impairment (WPI) is a rating system that is used to determine the severity of a person's serious injury. In simpler terms, it is a way to figure out how much of their 'personality' or 'behaviour' has been permanently changed by their physical or mental accident.
The medical evaluations that Ms Bhelley obtained support her assertion that the fall caused her impairment to a greater extent than five per cent.
However, the grocery chain did not believe these reports and instead referred the matter to a medical panel, which evaluated the woman in 2021.
Ms Bhelley said that she hurt her knee and back because she tripped over a piece of lettuce. Credit: News.com.au.
According to the medical examiners, Ms Bhelley's ageing and the subsequent therapy for her right knee contributed to the degeneration of her spine and sacroiliac joints.
The panel reached the conclusion that her condition was stable and that she did not have sufficient WPI to qualify for compensation.
So, the 43-year-old woman filed an appeal against the decision with the Victorian Supreme Court, saying that the panel made mistakes about its jurisdiction.
The court documents say: 'In particular, she alleges that, in finding that her injuries did not satisfy the threshold level, the Panel either did not apply the Guides; mistook or misapplied the provisions of the Guides; or made a finding that was not open to it, or which was unreasonable.'
'Mrs Bhelley submitted that, absent such error, the panel would have determined that her degree of whole person impairment resulting from her spinal injury was 5 per cent, satisfying the significant injury threshold and in turn entitling her to claim noneconomic loss damages.'
Coles rejected the initial report and forwarded it to a medical panel, which found Ms Bhelley's injuries did not warrant compensation. Credit: News.com.au.
Ms Bhelley said that the injuries she got when she fell in the supermarket in 2020 affected her immensely, made it hard for her to move around, and kept her from going to concerts and her temple.
In addition, she claimed she could only drive for an hour at a time before her lower back started to hurt and that she avoided running because she thought it might hurt her right knee.
'She can stand for about 10 minutes before she has to stretch her back,' the panel wrote in their report.
'She can walk for about 30 minutes, (but) after about 500m, she notices mild right knee pain, so stops walking to sit or stand for about 10 minutes. She can traverse stairs without difficulty, using alternate stair treads for both ascending and descending, with no lower back or right knee issues.'
Even though it has been two years since Ms Bhelley's fall, Judge Andrea Tsalamandris acknowledged that she may still be experiencing symptoms or complaints related to the incident.
In her ruling on Friday, however, she concluded that the panel had not made any mistakes in their evaluation, and she thus dismissed the woman's appeal.
'It was open to the panel to determine that Ms Bhelley's complaints and symptoms were most appropriately categorised,' Judge Tsalamandris wrote in her decision.
'I am not satisfied that there was a jurisdictional error made by the panel, and therefore dismiss this application.'
So, what do you think, folks? Do you feel that Ms Bhelley deserved compensation? Or is she putting too much blame on the store? Let us know in the comments!