Bryce v Qantas Airways Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 301

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	*Bryce v Qantas Airways Ltd* [2025] NSWPIC 301
APPLICANT:	Bryce
RESPONDENT:	Qantas Airways Limited
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	27 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly compensation and surgery costs; applicant long-term pilot; alleged work-related aggravation of cervical spine pathology resulting in disc herniation; respondent denied injury; whether employment was the main contributing factor to aggravation under section 4(b)(ii); not underlying condition; Federal Broom v Semlitch, Australian Conveyor v Mecha, and Dayton v Coles considered; only one main contributing factor required; causation assessed via commonsense approach; Kooragang Cement v Bates applied; lay and medical evidence supported gradual onset linked to work; discectomy found reasonably necessary; weekly compensation awarded at statutory rate subject to indexation; surgery costs payable; respondent credited for prior payments; applicant re-credited sick leave; Held - The applicant’s work suffered an injury incapacity in the course of his employment; the respondent must pay statutory maximum weekly compensation, surgery costs, and necessary medical expenses.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant suffered an injury to his neck in the course of his employment with the respondent, with a deemed date of injury of 7 September 2024. 2. At the date of injury, the applicant’s preinjury average weekly earnings were $7,508.52 per week, which exceeded the statutory maximum for payment. 3. As a result of his injury, the applicant was incapacitated for employment from 7 September 2024 to 11 November 2024. 4. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation at the statutory maximum rate, subject to periodic indexation, from 7 September 2024 to 11 November 2024. 5. The respondent is to have credit for any payments made during the above period, and where applicable, the applicant is to be recredited for any sick leave taken during this period. 6. The right C7/T1 microdiscectomy carried out by Dr Lukins on 13 September 2024 was reasonably necessary as a result of the applicant’s injury. 7. The respondent is to pay the costs of and incidental to the surgery carried out by Dr Lukins on 13 September 2024 at approved State Insurance Regulatory Authority rates. 8. The respondent is to otherwise pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 13 September 2024, the applicant, Jared Bryce, underwent a right C7/T1 microdiscectomy at the hands of Dr Timothy Lukins.
The applicant alleges the requirement for that surgery was brought about by an injury in the nature of an aggravation to his cervical spine in the course of his employment as a pilot with the respondent, Qantas Airways Limited.
As a result of the alleged injury, the applicant claims he was absent from work from 7 September 2024 to 11 November 2024 inclusive and claims weekly compensation for this period together with the cost of the surgery.
The respondent denies liability on the basis the applicant did not suffer a work-related injury to his…

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 Bryce v Qantas Airways Ltd

Details

AGLC: Jarrod Christopher Bryce v Qantas Airways Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 301
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 301
Decision Date: 27 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bryce v Qantas Airways Ltd, the applicant, a long-serving pilot, sought compensation for weekly incapacity and surgery costs due to an alleged aggravation of cervical spine pathology resulting from his employment. The respondent, Qantas Airways Ltd, denied that the injury was work-related. The case was heard in the relevant court, which was required to determine whether the applicant's employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation of his cervical spine condition, in accordance with section 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court considered the legal issues of whether the aggravation was work-related and if the employment was the main contributing factor. It examined relevant precedents, including Federal Broom v Semlitch, Australian Conveyor v Mecha, and Dayton v Coles, to understand that only one main contributing factor was necessary for liability. The court applied a commonsense approach to causation, assessing the evidence presented. It found that the medical and lay evidence supported a gradual onset of the condition linked to the applicant's work as a pilot, and that a discectomy was reasonably necessary.

The court concluded that the applicant's employment was indeed the main contributing factor to the aggravation of his cervical spine condition. It awarded the applicant weekly compensation at the statutory maximum rate, subject to indexation, along with surgery costs and necessary medical expenses. The respondent was credited for prior payments made to the applicant, and the applicant was re-credited for sick leave. The court ruled that the respondent must pay the compensation and costs as determined.

Orders