Knott v Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 444

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Knott v Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 444
APPLICANT:	John Knott
RESPONDENT:	Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Josephine Bamber
DATE OF DECISION:	28 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for proposed hip replacement surgery in circumstances where applicant had asymptomatic osteoarthritis in the hip before the workplace injury; respondent disputes the surgery is reasonably necessary treatment as a result of the workplace injury and asserts the effects of the injury have ceased; Held – the effects of the injury have not ceased and finding made that the proposed hip replacement surgery is reasonably necessary treatment as a result of the workplace injury.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The effects of the work related injury on 29 February 2020 have not ceased. 2. The proposed left hip replacement surgery is reasonably necessary treatment as a result of the work related injury on 29 February 2020. 3. The respondent is to pay the costs of the proposed left hip replacement surgery and ancillary treatment at the SIRA gazetted rates. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

John Knott, the applicant, was working as a baggage handler for the respondent, QANTAS Ground Services Pty Ltd when on 29 February 2020 he sustained an injury to his groin and hip region while unloading a container into a plane. His claim for compensation in these proceedings is confined to a total left hip replacement and related expenses claimed in his Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD). The reference in the ARD to the “right” hip is a typographical error and the ARD is amended to delete that reference and replace it with “left”.
The respondent disputes liability under s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 that the claimed treatment is reasonably necessary treatment as a result of the workplace injury. It asserted in its dispute notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) dated 19 September 2022 that the injury the applicant sustained to his left hip on 29 February 2020 has resolved and any ongoing symptoms are as a result of pre-existing degenerative osteoarthritis. On
14 August 2023 the insurer confirmed their declinature.

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.
As the matter could not be resolve it proceeded in arbitration hearing before me. Mr Bill Carney, counsel, instructed by Ms Medea Hanna, solicitor, appeared for Mr Knott, who was…

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 Knott v Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Knott v Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 444
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 444
Decision Date: 28 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Knott v Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd involved a claim for workers' compensation by the applicant, Knott, against the respondent, Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd. Knott sought compensation for a proposed hip replacement surgery, arguing that it was a necessary consequence of a workplace injury. The respondent contested the claim, arguing that Knott already had asymptomatic osteoarthritis in the hip before the workplace incident and that the effects of the injury had ceased, rendering the surgery unnecessary.

The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether the proposed hip replacement surgery was reasonably necessary as a result of the workplace injury, and if the effects of the injury had indeed ceased. The court needed to consider the evidence regarding the condition of Knott's hip prior to and after the workplace injury, and whether the injury had an ongoing impact that necessitated the surgery.

In resolving these issues, the court examined the medical evidence and concluded that the effects of the injury had not ceased and that the proposed hip replacement surgery was reasonably necessary treatment as a result of the workplace injury. The court found that there was a causal link between the workplace incident and the need for the surgery, despite the presence of asymptomatic osteoarthritis prior to the injury. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that the surgery was a necessary treatment stemming from the workplace injury.

The court ordered that the respondent, Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd, provide the necessary compensation for the proposed hip replacement surgery. This determination recognised the ongoing effects of the workplace injury on Knott's health and affirmed the necessity of the surgery as part of the treatment for those effects.

Orders