Napper v Buckley's Rural Services Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 456

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Napper v Buckley's Rural Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 456
APPLICANT:	Tye Napper
RESPONDENT:	Buckley's Rural Services Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
DATE OF DECISION:	4 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; disease injury; applicant suffered renal failure; worked in a weed spraying business; significant chemical use; whether disease contracted in the course of employment to which employment the main contributing factor; different diagnoses given; consideration of medicolegal and treating diagnoses; date of injury in circumstances where first incapacity unclear; whether disposal of medical waste from dialysis reasonably necessary medical treatment; Held – applicant suffered an injury; employment main contributing factor to that injury; date of injury determined on first attendance for kidney biopsy; disposal of medical waste not reasonably necessary; directions issued for further conduct of matter.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) determines: 1. The applicant contracted a disease injury in the course of employment, to which employment was the main contributing factor to contracting the disease. 2. The injury is deemed to have occurred on 12 July 2018. 3. There is insufficient information contained to determine the applicant’s entitlement to weekly compensation benefits, including the calculation of pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE). 4. Award for the respondent for the claimed medical expenses particularised in the Application to Resolve a Dispute, being “medical waste disposal”. 5. The respondent is to otherwise pay the applicant’s incurred medical expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as particularised in the Application to Resolve a Dispute. The Commission directs: 1. The parties are to have discussions to attempt to resolve the issues regarding the entitlement to weekly compensation, including the PIAWE based on a date of injury of 12 July 2018. 2. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on the calculation of PIAWE, or the award of weekly payments that are to be made, they are to lodge and serve the following: (a) the applicant, within 21 days of the date of this decision, a wages schedule attaching an explanation of the calculation of PIAWE, with references to appropriate evidence in support, and orders that it seeks the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) make concerning an award of weekly payments, and (b) the respondent, seven days following the date set out above, a wages schedule with the same attachments and explanation as above, in reply to that set out by the applicant. 3. Liberty to apply in respect of the above directions. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Napper is in an unenviable health situation. He is a young man, awaiting a kidney transplant, facing regular dialysis to keep him alive. He was, for a period, able to manage by undertaking dialysis at home. He is now undertaking dialysis at a medical facility. He is close to the top of the kidney transplant list, but even if that eventuates, he may be…

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 Napper v Buckley's Rural Services Pty 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: [2025] NSWPIC 456
Decision Date: 4 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Napper v Buckley's Rural Services Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr Napper, sought compensation for renal failure which he claimed was caused by his employment in a weed spraying business. The respondent, Buckley's Rural Services Pty Ltd, contested the claim, arguing that the renal failure was not work-related. The dispute was heard in the Workers Compensation Magistrates Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's renal failure was an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and whether the employment was the main contributing factor to the disease. Additionally, the court had to determine the date of the injury and whether the disposal of medical waste from dialysis treatments constituted reasonably necessary medical treatment for the purposes of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court examined the medical evidence and found that the applicant's renal failure was indeed an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, with the employment being a significant contributing factor. The court considered various medical opinions, ultimately accepting the applicant's diagnosis and rejecting the respondent's alternative explanations. The date of injury was determined based on the first attendance for a kidney biopsy, which provided clear evidence of incapacity. The court also ruled that the disposal of medical waste from dialysis treatments was not reasonably necessary medical treatment under the Act.

The court issued directions for further conduct of the matter, including further evidence and argument on quantum of compensation, costs, and any other matters the parties considered relevant.

Orders