King v R a Motors - [2025] NSWPIC 237

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	King v R A Motors [2025] NSWPIC 237
APPLICANT:	Richard King
RESPONDENT:	R A Motors
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
DATE OF DECISION:	29 May 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Consequential injury; accepted injury to left knee; left leg later developed symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS); whether applicant suffered a consequential condition in right leg; symptoms appeared spontaneously due to mirroring; requirement for pathology in a consequential condition; Grant v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd discussed; Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan applied; specific issues in CRPS cases; Elsworthy v Forgacs Engineering Pty Ltd discussed; Held – applicant suffered a consequential condition in his right lower extremity; matter referred for assessment of impairment.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffered a consequential condition in his right lower extremity, being complex regional pain syndrome. 2. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for assessment as follows: Date of injury: 1 October 2017. Body systems/parts: Left lower extremity (knee, complex regional pain syndrome), and right lower extremity (complex regional pain syndrome). Method of assessment: whole person impairment. 3. The documents to be referred to the Medical Assessor are: (a) the Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, and (b) the Reply and attached documents. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr King was employed by the respondent as a sales consultant. In April 2017, he was walking down a series of stairs into the car yard, when he slipped, with his left foot being caught in a gap between two stairs.
He continued to work, although was in pain at the time. The pain continued. On 1 September 2017, he consulted his general practitioner, who began a treatment program including investigations and referral to an orthopaedic surgeon. Ultimately Mr King required surgery in the left knee. The pain (and other physical symptoms) continued in the left knee for an extended period.
In October 2023, Mr King began experiencing swelling and pain in his right knee, which was reported to his treating pain specialist, Dr Shetty, who had earlier diagnosed complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in the left knee. Dr Shetty observed symptoms consistent with CRPS in the right knee, by way of mirroring.
On 29 February 2024, Mr King, through his solicitors, made a claim for lump sum compensation in the left and right lower limbs, based on a medical report of Dr Dias. The respondent disputed liability for the consequential lumbar spine and right knee condition, as a result of the accepted injury to the left knee that occurred on 1 October 2017.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the applicant sustained a consequential condition in his right knee as…

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 King v R a Motors

Details

AGLC: King v R a Motors [2025] NSWPIC 237
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 237
Decision Date: 29 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in King v R a Motors sought compensation for a consequential condition that developed in his right leg after an accepted injury to his left knee. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court. The dispute centered on whether the symptoms the applicant experienced in his right leg constituted a consequential condition under workers' compensation law.

The court was required to determine if the symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in the applicant's right leg were a consequential condition to the injury in his left knee. The legal issues involved understanding the definition of a consequential condition, the requirement for pathology in such conditions, and whether the symptoms that appeared in the right leg were spontaneous or due to mirroring.

The court found that the applicant had indeed suffered a consequential condition in his right lower extremity. The reasoning involved examining the specific issues in CRPS cases, including the mirroring phenomenon. The court referenced previous cases such as Grant v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd, Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Brennan, and Elsworthy v Forgacs Engineering Pty Ltd. Ultimately, the court concluded that the applicant's symptoms were linked to the original injury and referred the matter for an assessment of impairment.

No specific orders were made in the text provided, but the matter was referred for further assessment to determine the extent of the impairment.

Orders