Bridgefoot v Sydney Catholic Schools Limited - [2021] NSWPIC 335

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Bridgefoot v Sydney Catholic Schools Limited [2021] NSWPIC 335
APPLICANT:	Gelsomina Bridgefoot
RESPONDENT:	Sydney Catholic Schools Limited
MEMBER:	Catherine McDonald
DATE OF DECISION:	7 September 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 expenses for right total knee replacement; severe degenerative change in knee aggravated by an injury in 2019; medical evidence with respect to material contribution; Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd considered; requirements for expert evidence; South West Sydney Area Health Service v Edmonds considered; Held - award for the applicant pursuant to section 60.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant discontinues the claim for weekly compensation. 2. Pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the respondent is to pay the applicant’s medical, hospital and related treatment expenses of, and incidental to, right total knee replacement surgery undertaken by Dr Broe on 1 June 2020.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Gelsomina Bridgefoot is employed by Sydney Catholic Schools Limited (Schools) as a primary school teacher. She suffered three injuries during the course of her employment but in these proceedings relied only on an injury on 6 December 2019 in a bus accident. The Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) pleaded that the injury aggravated a previous injury on 30 November 2018.
On 1 June 2020, Ms Bridgefoot underwent a right total knee replacement. Schools concedes that Ms Bridgefoot suffered an injury to her right knee on 6 December 2019 and that the right total knee replacement was reasonably necessary medical treatment for the condition in her knee.
The issue for determination is whether the injury on 6 December 2019 made a material contribution to the need for that surgery.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The proceedings were heard and determined by an arbitrator of the former Workers Compensation Commission on 11 November 2020 who gave oral reasons for his decision on that day.
Schools appealed and in a decision dated 8 June 2021[1], the President of the Personal Injury Commission revoked the Certificate of Determination and remitted the matter for determination by another member.
[1] Sydney Catholic Schools Limited v Bridgefoot [2021] NSWPICPD 17.
The matter was listed for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing on 6 August 2021 when Ms Goodman of counsel appeared for Ms Bridgefoot and Mr Baker of counsel appeared for Schools.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
The ARD seeks weekly compensation as well as s 60 expenses. I was informed that Ms Bridgefoot intended to discontinue the claim for weekly compensation and the parties were uncertain if that…

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 Bridgefoot v Sydney Catholic Schools Limited 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: [2021] NSWPIC 335
Decision Date: 7 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bridgefoot v Sydney Catholic Schools Limited involved a dispute between the applicant, who had suffered an injury to his knee in 2019, and the respondent, his employer. The primary issue was whether the employer was liable to cover the costs of a right total knee replacement for the applicant, which the applicant claimed was necessitated by his degenerative knee condition, which was aggravated by the 2019 injury. The matter was heard in the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales.

The court had to determine whether the applicant's knee condition was materially contributed to by the 2019 injury, thereby justifying the employer's liability for the knee replacement surgery under Section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The applicant submitted that the injury aggravated an existing degenerative condition, necessitating the surgery. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the degenerative changes pre-dated the 2019 injury, and thus the employer was not liable for the surgery. The court considered the principles established in Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd and South West Sydney Area Health Service v Edmonds to assess the material contribution of the 2019 injury to the applicant's degenerative knee condition.

The court found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 2019 injury materially contributed to his degenerative knee condition, warranting the knee replacement surgery. The court accepted the medical evidence presented, which established a causal link between the 2019 injury and the severe degenerative changes in the applicant's knee. The expert evidence provided was deemed sufficient to meet the requirements set out in Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd and South West Sydney Area Health Service v Edmonds, confirming that the 2019 injury had indeed accelerated the need for the surgery. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, holding that the employer was liable for the costs of the knee replacement surgery under Section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court ordered the employer to cover the expenses related to the surgery.

Orders