Harvey v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) - [2025] NSWPIC 530

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Harvey v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2025] NSWPIC 530
APPLICANT:	Paul Anthony Harvey
RESPONDENT:	State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force)
MEMBER:	John Turner
DATE OF DECISION:	8 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; section 11A(1) and section 60; consequential condition; Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan, Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, and Briginshaw v Briginshaw cited and applied; Held – the applicant has sustained a consequential condition of the left knee as a result of the accepted right knee injury; the respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60 in respect to the left knee including the costs of and associated with the left knee high tibial osteotomy surgery; the respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs; a 15% costs uplift is awarded to both parties.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. That the applicant has sustained a consequential condition of the left knee as a result of the accepted right knee injury on 17 October 2024. 2. The respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in respect to the left knee including the costs of and associated with the left knee high tibial osteotomy surgery. 3. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs. A 15% costs uplift is awarded to both parties. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Paul Anthony Harvey (applicant) has brought proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) in which he pleads that he sustained injury whilst in the course of his employment with the State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) (respondent).
The applicant pleads that on 17 October 2014 he was wrestling students during training exercises sustaining injury to his right knee. The applicant also alleges that as a result of the injury to his right knee he walked with an altered gait causing a consequential left knee condition.
The relief sought by the applicant is the payment by the respondent pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) of his medical and related treatment expenses including the costs of and associated with left knee-high tibial osteotomy surgery.
The respondent does not dispute the injury to the right knee. The respondent does dispute that the applicant sustained a consequential condition of the left knee.
The applicant commenced employment with the respondent on 28 August 2003 and ceased employment with the respondent on or about 23 August 2018.
It is the applicant’s evidence that prior to commencing employment with the respondent he had no complaints or symptoms of a left or right knee injury.[1]
[1] ARD p. 4.
It is the applicant’s evidence that prior to commencing employment with the respondent…

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 Harvey v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force)

Details

AGLC: Harvey v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2025] NSWPIC 530
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 530
Decision Date: 8 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Harvey, brought an application against the State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) regarding an injury sustained in the course of employment. The matter was heard and determined in the Workers Compensation NCAT. The primary issue before the tribunal was whether the applicant had sustained a consequential condition in his left knee as a result of an accepted injury to his right knee. The secondary issue was whether the NSW Police Force were required to pay for the medical and treatment expenses associated with the left knee injury, including the costs of a high tibial osteotomy surgery.

The tribunal held that the applicant had indeed sustained a consequential condition in his left knee as a result of the accepted right knee injury. This conclusion was based on a preponderance of the evidence and the principles set out in Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan, Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, and Briginshaw v Briginshaw. The tribunal found that the evidence demonstrated a clear causal link between the right knee injury and the left knee condition. The tribunal also determined that the respondent, NSW Police Force, was liable to pay for the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses in respect of the left knee, including the costs of the high tibial osteotomy surgery. The tribunal further ordered that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs and awarded a 15% costs uplift to both parties.

Orders