Curcuruto v Secretary, Department of Education - [2025] NSWPIC 273

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Curcuruto v Secretary, Department of Education [2025] NSWPIC 273
APPLICANT:	Karen Curcuruto
RESPONDENT:	Secretary, Department of Education
MEMBER:	Adam Halstead
DATE OF DECISION:	17 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; medical expenses claim pursuant to section 60; applicant injured at work; knee injuries accepted; exercise program following knee surgery; applicant claims pelvic organ prolapse as consequential condition arising from exercise program; nature of available supporting medical evidence; sufficiency for establishing causal chain; Held – available evidence does not reasonably establish pelvic organ prolapse consequential to accepted workplace injuries; other relevant risk factors present; award for respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Award for the respondent. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Karen Curcuruto, claims the cost of medical treatment, specifically surgery, to correct a pelvic organ prolapse. She injured her right knee in the course of employment with the respondent, Secretary, Department of Education. Her left knee was later also affected. Bilateral knee surgery was performed and the applicant was prescribed a post-operative exercise program. The applicant contends the program caused a pelvic organ prolapse or aggravation of that condition. The respondent disputes the claim. An Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) was lodged by the applicant in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 12 February 2025. The ARD refers the applicant having “sustained a pelvic prolapse”.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The matter was before the Commission for an arbitration hearing on 9 May 2025. Ms Compton of counsel, instructed by Mr Morson from Turner Freeman solicitors, appeared for the applicant, who was present. The respondent was represented by Mr Hart of counsel, instructed by Mr Simmons from Gair Legal solicitors and an officer from its insurer.
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 have endeavoured to bring the parties to the dispute to an acceptable settlement and am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement. They have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The issues identified by the parties that require determination are whether:
(a) any pelvic organ prolapse condition experienced by the applicant is consequential to her work-related knee injury and, if so
(b) it is reasonably necessary for the applicant to receive proposed surgery.

EVIDENCE

The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and considered in making this determination:
(a)    ARD and attached documents;
(b)    Reply with attachments from the respondent (Reply), and
(c)    supplementary applicant statement dated 7 May 2025.
There was no application to call oral evidence or cross-examine any witness at the hearing.

CONSIDERATION, FINDINGS AND REASONS

Does the applicant suffer consequential pelvic organ prolapse?

The applicant claims to suffer a pelvic organ prolapse condition that arose from her accepted knee injury. The basis of the…

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 Curcuruto v Secretary, Department of Education

Details

AGLC: Curcuruto v Secretary, Department of Education [2025] NSWPIC 273
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 273
Decision Date: 17 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court was a dispute between Curcuruto and the Secretary of the Department of Education concerning a claim for medical expenses under section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Curcuruto, an applicant, alleged that she sustained knee injuries at work, which were accepted. Following knee surgery, she participated in an exercise program. Curcuruto then claimed that the exercise program caused her to develop pelvic organ prolapse, which she argued was a consequential condition of her workplace injuries. The central issue before the Court was whether the available medical evidence was sufficient to establish a causal chain between the exercise program and the pelvic organ prolapse, thereby justifying a claim for additional medical expenses.

The Court meticulously examined the nature and sufficiency of the medical evidence presented by Curcuruto. It was noted that the available medical evidence did not reasonably establish that the pelvic organ prolapse was a direct consequence of the exercise program following the knee surgery. The Court considered that other relevant risk factors might have contributed to the condition. Consequently, the Court found that the evidence did not meet the necessary standard to support a claim for additional medical expenses under the Act.

The Court concluded that the evidence did not reasonably establish the causal chain between the accepted workplace injuries, the exercise program, and the pelvic organ prolapse. Therefore, the claim for additional medical expenses was denied, and the award was made in favour of the Secretary of the Department of Education.

Orders