Attard v Planet Motor Cycles Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 39

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Attard v Planet Motor Cycles Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 39
APPLICANT:	Lawrence Attard
RESPONDENT:	Planet Motor Cycles Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	5 February 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; medical expenses; claim for cost of proposed right hip surgery; respondent alleges no work injury to affected body system and that the requirement for medically necessary surgery is not as a result of any injury; Held – the nature and conditions of the applicant’s employment as a plumber caused an injury in the nature of a disease process to his right hip; section 4(b)(i); the proposed surgery is reasonably necessary as a result of the applicant’s injury; the respondent is to pay the costs of and incidental to the proposed surgery.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffered an injury to his right hip in the course of his employment with the respondent, to which his employment was the main contributing factor. 2. For the purposes of these proceedings only, the deemed date of the applicant’s injury is agreed to be 8 November 2019. 3. The proposed right hip arthroplasty recommended by Dr Randhawa is reasonably necessary as a result of the applicant’s injury. 4. The respondent is to pay the costs of and incidental to the proposed surgery. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Lawrence Attard (the applicant) requires a right hip arthroplasty.
The parties agree such surgery is a medical necessity, however, they disagree as to whether the applicant’s right hip condition is a work injury, and if so, whether that injury has brought about the need for the proposed surgery.
The applicant has been employed as a plumber with Planet Motor Cycles Pty Ltd (the respondent) since approximately 2005. There is no issue that employment required him to undertake repetitive and physically demanding tasks, which regularly placed significant pressure on his joints.
The respondent has, in the past, paid for medical treatment in relation to other body systems including the applicant’s back and knees. However, the respondent denies liability for any injury to the applicant’s right hip, and says the nature and conditions of the applicant’s employment was not the main contributing factor to any such injury.
Additionally, the respondent, while acknowledging the applicant’s hip condition and the objective need for the proposed surgery, denies the need for the proposed surgery is reasonably necessary as a result of the relevant employment.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the applicant’s employment was the main contributing factor to the right hip condition, and
(b) if the answer to (a) above is in the affirmative, whether the proposed surgery is reasonably necessary as a result of the work injury.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION (Commission)

I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attard v Planet Motor Cycles Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPIC 39
Decision Date: 5 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Attard, brought a claim against Planet Motor Cycles Pty Ltd for compensation in relation to medical expenses, specifically the cost of a proposed right hip surgery. The respondent, Planet Motor Cycles, argued that Attard had not suffered a work injury to the affected body system and that the requirement for surgery was not a result of any work-related injury. The matter was heard in the relevant court. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Attard's employment as a plumber with the respondent had caused an injury to his right hip that warranted compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the proposed surgery was reasonably necessary as a result of the injury and whether the respondent was liable to pay the costs associated with it.

The court found that the nature and conditions of Attard's employment as a plumber did indeed cause an injury in the nature of a disease process to his right hip. The court referenced section 4(b)(i) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, which outlines the circumstances under which a disease may be considered work-related. The court determined that the proposed surgery was reasonably necessary as a consequence of Attard's injury and that the respondent was responsible for covering the costs of and incidental to the surgery. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence presented, including medical reports and expert testimony, which established a clear link between Attard's employment and the condition of his right hip.

The court's final orders were that Planet Motor Cycles Pty Ltd is to pay the costs of and incidental to the proposed surgery for Attard's right hip. This decision underscores the importance of establishing a causal link between an employee's work activities and the medical condition in question when claiming workers' compensation.

Orders