Davis v MTEC Mechanical Services Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 525

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Davis v MTEC Mechanical Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 525
APPLICANT:	Brooke Davis
RESPONDENT:	MTEC Mechanical Services Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Michael Wright
DATE OF DECISION:	3 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for proposed spinal surgery; section 60 dispute; causation; factual issues considered; Kooragang Cement Ltd v Bates considered; Held – proposed surgery reasonably necessary as a result of subject injury.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) determines: 1. The surgery proposed by Dr Ferch, being “spinal decompression, laminectomy, vertebrectomy or pos, fixation of motion segment with pedicle screws - 1 segment, spinal fusion, posterior/anterior - 1 segment, spine bone graft - 1 segment” (the proposed surgery) is reasonably necessary as a result of the injury on 24 February 2022. 2. Pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, respondent is to pay for the costs of, and associated with, the proposed surgery. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 24 February 2022, Ms Brooke (the applicant) in the course of her employment as a heavy vehicle mechanic with MTEC Mechanical Services Pty Ltd (the respondent) was struck on the face by a chain that had broken while lifting an 8tonne truck engine into a large truck. She fell backwards from a height of 2m. The applicant suffered dental and facial injuries, psychological injury (post-traumatic stress disorder) and injury to her lumbar spine. There was no dispute as to injury.
The applicant claims in these proceedings for the proposed costs of surgery in the form of an L4/5 lumbar discectomy and fusion, as recommended by Dr Ferch, treating neurosurgeon. The respondent disputed that the recommended surgery was reasonably necessary as a result of the injury.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

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 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.
At the conciliation/arbitration hearing of this matter, the applicant was represented by
Mr Morgan of counsel, and the respondent by Ms Goodman of counsel.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:
(a)    Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) and attached documents;
(b)    Reply and attached documents, and
(c)    Applications to Lodge Additional Documents, dated 31 July 2025 and
22 August 2025, and attached documents.

Oral evidence

There was no oral evidence.

Documents

The applicant provided a statement dated 20 June 2025.
She described the accident on 24 February 2022 and subsequent dental treatment, with eight oral surgeries including dental implants,…

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 Davis v MTEC Mechanical Services Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Davis v MTEC Mechanical Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 525
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 525
Decision Date: 3 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Davis versus MTEC Mechanical Services Pty Ltd, the parties were engaged in a workers' compensation dispute. The claimant, Davis, sought compensation for a proposed spinal surgery he required due to an injury sustained during his employment. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed spinal surgery was reasonably necessary as a consequence of the work-related injury. The court needed to determine if there was a causal link between the injury and the necessity of the surgery, and if the surgery was indeed reasonably necessary. This involved examining the factual circumstances of the injury, the medical evidence provided, and whether the surgery was in line with the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court carefully reviewed the evidence presented, including the medical reports and expert opinions, to ascertain whether the proposed surgery was a reasonable and necessary consequence of the injury. It applied the principles from the case of Kooragang Cement Ltd v Bates, which provided guidance on determining causation in workers' compensation claims. After thorough consideration, the court concluded that the proposed surgery was reasonably necessary as a result of the subject injury. Therefore, the claim for compensation was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that MTEC Mechanical Services Pty Ltd was liable to compensate Davis for the proposed spinal surgery and any related medical expenses. The decision was based on the finding that the surgery was reasonably necessary as a result of the injury sustained during employment.

Orders