Barnes v Alicia Pullen Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 384

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Barnes v Alicia Pullen Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 384
APPLICANT:	Shane Barnes
RESPONDENT:	Alicia Pullen Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	John Turner
DATE OF DECISION:	7 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for medical and treatment expenses; reasonably necessary; consequential condition; section 60; Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan, Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, Watson’s Culcairn Hotel Pty Ltd v Dwyer, State of New South Wales v Bishop, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Briginshaw v Briginshaw, Rose v Health Commission (NSW), Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd, and Diab v NRMA Limited cited and applied; Held – the applicant has suffered a consequential left knee condition as a result of the accepted right knee injury; the bilateral total knee replacement surgery recommended is reasonably necessary due to the accepted work injury to the right knee and consequential left knee condition; pursuant to section 60 the respondent is to pay the costs of and associated with the bilateral total knee replacement surgery.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The Application to Resolve a Dispute is amended to limit the claim pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act1987 to the costs of and associated with total bilateral knee replacement surgery. 2. That the applicant has suffered a consequential left knee condition as a result of the accepted right knee injury. 3. That the bilateral total knee replacement surgery recommended by Dr Randhawa is reasonably necessary due to the accepted work injury to the right knee and consequential left knee condition. 4. The respondent is pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 to pay the costs of and associated with the bilateral total knee replacement surgery recommended by Dr Randhawa. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Shane Barnes (applicant) has brought proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) in which he pleads that he sustained injury to his right knee on
17 September 2018 whilst unloading items from a truck whilst in the course of his employment with Alicia Pullen Pty Ltd (respondent). The applicant pleads that he sustained the injury as he pulled a box towards him and turned, at which time his right knee twisted and gave way beneath him causing him to fall. The applicant also alleges that he sustained a consequential left knee condition as a result of favouring the injured right knee.
Injury to the right knee is not disputed. The alleged consequential left knee condition is disputed by the respondent.
The applicant seeks pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) the payment of the costs of bilateral knee replacement surgery recommended by Dr Sunny Randhawa.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) consequential condition of the left knee, and
(b) whether…

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.

Continue reading Barnes v Alicia Pullen Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Barnes v Alicia Pullen Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 384
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 384
Decision Date: 7 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Barnes, brought an action against Alicia Pullen Pty Ltd for compensation relating to medical and treatment expenses following a work-related injury. The dispute centered on whether the proposed bilateral total knee replacement surgery was reasonably necessary and covered under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales.

The legal issues for the court to determine were whether the applicant had suffered a consequential left knee condition as a result of the accepted right knee injury and if the bilateral total knee replacement surgery was reasonably necessary. The court examined the statutory provisions under section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the relevant case law, including Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan, Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, Watson’s Culcairn Hotel Pty Ltd v Dwyer, State of New South Wales v Bishop, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Briginshaw v Briginshaw, Rose v Health Commission (NSW), Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd, and Diab v NRMA Limited. The court needed to assess the necessity of the surgery based on the evidence provided and the legal principles established by these cases.

The court found that the applicant had indeed suffered a consequential left knee condition as a result of the accepted right knee injury. It was determined that the bilateral total knee replacement surgery was reasonably necessary due to the accepted work injury to the right knee and the consequential left knee condition. The court applied the Briginshaw standard of proof, considering that the balance of probabilities favoured the applicant's claims. Accordingly, the court ruled that the respondent was liable to pay the costs of and associated with the bilateral total knee replacement surgery as per section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The final orders of the court required the respondent to pay for the bilateral total knee replacement surgery, including all associated costs, as reasonably necessary due to the consequential left knee condition arising from the accepted right knee injury. The court's decision was based on the applicant's demonstrated need for the surgery and the statutory obligations under the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders