Finnegan v Qantas Airways Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 492

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Finnegan v Qantas Airways Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 492
APPLICANT:	Michael Finnegan
RESPONDENT:	Qantas Airways Ltd
MEMBER:	Gaius Whiffin
DATE OF DECISION:	5 September 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; section 60; claim for injury to the left ankle together with consequential condition to the left knee; proposed left total knee replacement; respondent concedes liability for the left ankle injury and concedes that the proposed left total knee replacement is reasonably necessary treatment for the applicant’s left knee condition; respondent denies liability for the applicant’s alleged consequential condition to his left knee; materiality; Usher v Coffs Harbour City Council, Jones v Dunkel, Purkess v Crittenden, Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, Drca v KAB Seating Systems Pty Ltd, Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd, and Payne v Parker considered; Held – the applicant has sustained a consequential injury to his left knee resulting from his accepted left ankle injury; the proposed left total knee replacement surgery is reasonably necessary; proposed surgery is materially contributed to by the applicant’s left ankle injury; the respondent is to pay for the costs of, and incidental to, the said surgery.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant has sustained a consequential injury to his left knee resulting from his accepted 13 July 2017 left ankle injury. 2. The surgery proposed for the applicant by Dr Fleming (a left total knee replacement) as referred to in his 1 April 2022 report, is reasonably necessary medical treatment and results from and is materially contributed to by the applicant’s 13 July 2017 left ankle injury. The Commission orders: 1. The respondent is to pay for the costs of and incidental to the surgery proposed for the applicant by Dr Fleming and referred to in his 1 April 2022 report (a left total knee replacement), pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Michael Finnegan (the applicant) is 65-years-old. He was employed as a domestic flight attendant by Qantas Airways Limited (the respondent) from 1994 until he was made redundant from that employment effective 17 January 2021.
He injured his left ankle whilst descending a flight of stairs in a car park at Mascot airport on 13 July 2017. The respondent has accepted liability for this left ankle injury, and has made various workers compensation payments to the applicant in the past in this regard.
The applicant also alleges that following the left ankle injury, he has sustained a consequential condition to his left knee resulting from the left ankle injury. The respondent has denied liability for this alleged consequential condition.
The applicant’s treating orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Fleming, has recommended to him that he undergo surgery to treat his left knee. On 1 April 2022, the doctor recommended that he undergo a left total knee…

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 Finnegan v Qantas Airways Ltd 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: [2024] NSWPIC 492
Decision Date: 5 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Finnegan brought an action against Qantas Airways Ltd in the Workers Compensation Court of Queensland, seeking compensation for injuries sustained during his employment. Finnegan claimed that he had suffered an injury to his left ankle and a consequential condition to his left knee, which necessitated a proposed total knee replacement. Qantas conceded liability for the ankle injury and acknowledged that the knee replacement surgery was a reasonably necessary treatment for Finnegan's knee condition. However, Qantas disputed liability for the consequential knee condition, arguing it was not materially contributed to by the ankle injury.

The court had to determine whether Finnegan's left knee condition constituted a consequential injury to his left ankle injury and, if so, whether Qantas was liable for the consequential injury. The court considered various authorities, including Usher v Coffs Harbour City Council, Jones v Dunkel, Purkess v Crittenden, and others, which discussed the materiality of contributing factors to an injury. The court was tasked with applying these principles to decide if the knee condition was materially contributed to by the ankle injury.

In its decision, the court found that Finnegan had indeed sustained a consequential injury to his left knee resulting from his left ankle injury. The court held that the proposed total knee replacement surgery was reasonably necessary and that the surgery was materially contributed to by the ankle injury. Consequently, the court ruled that Qantas was liable to pay for the costs of the surgery and any incidental expenses. The court's reasoning hinged on the clear connection between the initial ankle injury and the subsequent knee condition, supported by the medical evidence presented.

The court ordered Qantas to cover the costs of the proposed total knee replacement surgery, including all incidental expenses, thereby resolving the dispute in favour of Finnegan.

Orders