Legal Research
Cases
Butcher v Action Botany Pty Ltd

Butcher v Action Botany Pty Ltd

Case [2025] NSWPIC 266 13 June 2025

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Butcher v Action Botany Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 266
APPLICANT:	Ross Butcher
RESPONDENT:	Action Botany Pty Limited
MEMBER:	Kathryn Camp
DATE OF DECISION:	13 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; section 60; claim for past and future medical expenses; accepted injury to lumbar spine and right hip; consequential condition to the right Achilles tendon; disputed consequential condition to the bilateral wrists and shoulders from prolonged use of walking aids in recovery of right Achilles injury; consequential loss; evidence of signs and symptoms; principles in Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan, Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd, and Diab v NRMA Limited considered and applied; Held – applicant discharged onus of proof that he developed symptoms in the bilateral wrists and shoulders as a consequence of the accepted workplace injury; proposed surgery is reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted injury; respondent to pay the cost proposed surgery; general order for medical expenses.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained a consequential condition to his bilateral wrists and shoulders as a result of the accepted injury on 30 May 2019. 2. The proposed left trapeziectomy and carpal tunnel release is reasonably necessary treatment as a result of the injury. 3. The applicant is entitled to payment of reasonably necessary medical or related expenses arising from his consequential condition to the bilateral wrists and shoulders. The Commission orders: 4. The Application to Lodge Additional Documents and attachments, lodged on 2 March 2025, is discontinued. 5. The Application to Lodge Additional Documents and attachments, lodged on 1 March 2025, is admitted into the proceedings. 6. The respondent is to pay the applicant the costs of, and incidental to, proposed left trapeziectomy and carpal tunnel release surgery recommended by Dr Meads, pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 7. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses in respect of the bilateral wrists and shoulders on production of accounts, receipts and/or Medicare Notice of Charge, pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

This matter concerns a claim for past and future medical expenses in relation to symptoms in the applicant worker’s bilateral wrists and shoulders said to have resulted from an accepted injury. In particular, it concerns whether the medical treatment and expenses claimed is reasonably necessary as a result of an accepted consequential condition to the right Achilles tendon arising from an accepted lumbar spine and right hip injury, under s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act)
For the reasons discussed below, the worker’s claim for compensation is successful.

BACKGROUND

In 2018, the applicant worker, Ross Butcher, commenced work for the respondent, Action Botany Pty Limited as a labourer. He was…

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 Butcher v Action Botany Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Butcher v Action Botany Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 266
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 266
Decision Date: 13 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Butcher, a worker, brought a claim against Action Botany Pty Ltd, his employer, for past and future medical expenses arising from a workplace injury. The dispute centred on the extent of injuries sustained by the worker and whether certain conditions were a consequence of the initial injury. The case was heard and determined by a court in Australia.

The primary legal issue for the court was to decide whether the worker had discharged the onus of proving that the symptoms in his bilateral wrists and shoulders were a consequence of the accepted workplace injury to his lumbar spine and right hip. The worker claimed that prolonged use of walking aids during his recovery from the initial injury caused additional injuries to his wrists and shoulders. The employer contested this, arguing that the worker had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the use of walking aids and the claimed injuries.

The court examined the evidence presented and considered the principles set forth in relevant cases such as Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan, Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd, and Diab v NRMA Limited. The court found that the worker had successfully demonstrated that the symptoms in his bilateral wrists and shoulders were a consequence of the accepted workplace injury. The court held that the proposed surgery for these conditions was reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted injury. Consequently, the employer was ordered to pay for the proposed surgery and to cover the general order for medical expenses.

The court further made orders that the employer pay for the costs associated with the proposed surgery and any other medical expenses resulting from the accepted injury, subject to the worker providing necessary documentation and evidence. The court's decision confirmed the worker's entitlement to compensation for the consequential injuries and treatment, ensuring that he received appropriate support for his ongoing medical needs.

Orders