Hargrave v Skelwork Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 488

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Hargrave v Skelwork Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 488
APPLICANT:	Corey Hargrave
RESPONDENT:	Skelwork Pty Ltd
SENIOR MEMBER:	Kerry Haddock
DATE OF DECISION:	17 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; application claimed costs of surgery to cervical spine and left shoulder; applicant sought only costs of surgery to cervical spine and general order for treatment of left shoulder; dispute as to injury; applicant unsure of date of injury; documents lodged by respondent established applicant was not working for respondent on alleged date of injury; injury may have occurred some weeks later; application amended to claim alternative dates of injury; summonses to give evidence served on applicant’s supervisor and respondent’s operations manager and director of the respondent; no application made to cross-examine applicant or call evidence from witnesses under summons; application by respondent to dispute “notice” and “claim” refused; respondent did not dispute reasonable necessity of proposed surgery to cervical spine; consideration of application of section 59A, Mateus v Zodune Pty Limited trading as Tempo Cleaning Services, State of New South Wales v Hunt, Humphrey v Woolworths Group Limited, and Flying Solo Properties Pty Ltd t/as Artee Signs v Collet; Held – applicant sustained injury to neck and left shoulder; employment was a substantial contributing factor to injury; declaration as to costs of surgery to cervical spine and treatment of left shoulder.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The surgical treatment claimed by the applicant, that is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at C3/4, and associated expenses, is reasonably necessary medical treatment as a result of injury on or about 22 March 2022. 2. The applicant is entitled to a general order for medical and related treatment of his left shoulder, pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, subject to the limitations imposed by s 59A of the Act. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Corey Hargrave (Mr Hargrave), is employed by the respondent, Skelwork Pty Ltd (Skelwork), as a scaffolder.
Mr Hargrave claims to have sustained injury to his neck and left shoulder arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent.
On 26 March 2024, Dr Stuart Jansen requested of the respondent’s insurer, EML, approval for proposed (left) shoulder arthroscopic AC (acromioclavicular) joint resection.
On 4 April 2024, Dr Ravi Kumar Cherukuri, requested of EML approval for proposed anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) at C3/4.
On 14 May 2024, EML issued the applicant with a notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act). The date of injury was stated to be 8 February 2022.
EML disputed that the applicant had sustained injury; that employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury; that the applicant had incapacity for work as a result of the injury; and that medical or related treatment was reasonably…

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 Hargrave v Skelwork Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Hargrave v Skelwork Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 488
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 488
Decision Date: 17 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Hargrave, the applicant, and Skelwork Pty Ltd, the respondent. The dispute centres around the applicant's claim for the costs of surgery to his cervical spine and left shoulder under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The applicant initially sought only the costs of surgery to his cervical spine and a general order for treatment of his left shoulder, but the respondent disputed the claim due to uncertainties regarding the date of injury. The case was heard in the relevant court.

The central legal issues that the court needed to decide were whether the applicant's injuries were work-related and if the respondent was liable for the costs of the surgeries and treatments claimed. The court also needed to assess the application of section 59A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in the context of the provided case law, including Mateus v Zodune Pty Limited, State of New South Wales v Hunt, Humphrey v Woolworths Group Limited, and Flying Solo Properties Pty Ltd t/as Artee Signs v Collet.

In its reasoning, the court found that the applicant had sustained injuries to his neck and left shoulder, and that his employment with the respondent was a substantial contributing factor to these injuries. The court considered the documents submitted by the respondent, which established that the applicant was not working for the respondent on the alleged date of injury, but rather some weeks later. Despite this, the court ruled that the applicant's employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injuries. Consequently, the court found in favour of the applicant and ordered that the respondent bear the costs of the surgeries to the cervical spine and treatment of the left shoulder.

Orders