Stemp v Strikeforce Amc Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 312

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Stemp v Strikeforce Amc Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 312
APPLICANT:	Leonie Stemp
RESPONDENT:	Strikeforce Amc Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	1 July 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Permanent impairment claim; accepted right knee injury; whether applicant suffered consequential conditions to right hip and lumbar spine; applicant was a merchandiser injured in course of employment; claimed consequential conditions due to persistent limp until total knee replacement; Held – presence of consequential condition is a causation question decided by commonsense evaluation of all lay and expert evidence; Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates applied; no pathological change needed; only symptoms and restrictions linked to knee injury; Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd and Moon v Conmah Pty Ltd cited and followed; medical and lay evidence establish consequential conditions; matter remitted to President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine permanent impairment to all claimed body systems.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant suffered an injury to her right lower extremity (knee) in the course of her employment with the respondent on 24 October 2019. 2. As a result of the injury referred to in [1] above, the applicant suffered consequential conditions to her right lower extremity (hip) and lumbar spine. 3. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the degree of permanent impairment arising from the following: Date of injury: 24 October 2019. Body systems referred: right lower extremity (knee); scarring (TEMSKI); right lower extremity (hip) (consequential condition) and lumbar spine (consequential condition). Method of assessment: whole person impairment. 4. The documents to be referred to the Medical Assessor to assist with their determination are to include the following: (a) this Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons; (b) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attachments; (c) Reply and attachments; (d) applicant’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 15 May 2025 and attachments, and (e) respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 18 June 2025 and attachments.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 24 October 2019, Leonie Stemp (the applicant) was working as a merchandiser in the course of her employment with the respondent, Strike Force Amc Pty ltd when she suffered an injury to her right knee.
The applicant’s right knee injury is not disputed, nor is the fact she set about a long course of conservative treatment before submitting to a right knee arthroscopy at the hands of her treating surgeon, Dr Herald on 12 March 2021. Thereafter, the applicant tried a further extensive period of rehabilitation, however, her condition did not resolve, and she eventually underwent a right total knee replacement at the hands of Dr Herald on 24 November 2023.
In addition to the accepted right knee injury and consequential surgical scarring, the applicant claims she suffered consequential conditions in her right hip and lumbar spine as a result of a persistent limp which she developed after her injury.
The respondent denies liability in respect of the consequential conditions to the…

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 Stemp v Strikeforce Amc Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Stemp v Strikeforce Am Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 312
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 312
Decision Date: 1 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stemp v Strikeforce Amc Pty Ltd, the applicant sought a determination regarding permanent impairment arising from an accepted right knee injury sustained in the course of employment. The matter was heard and determined in the Workers Compensation Commission of Queensland. The primary issue for the court was whether the applicant had suffered consequential conditions in the right hip and lumbar spine due to the persistent limp experienced until the total knee replacement.

The court was required to determine if the applicant's symptoms and restrictions were linked to the knee injury and whether the presence of a consequential condition necessitated a pathological change or could be established through symptoms and restrictions alone. The court applied the principles established in Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates, emphasising that the presence of a consequential condition is a causation question determined by a commonsense evaluation of all evidence, both lay and expert. The court referred to Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd and Moon v Conmah Pty Ltd to support its reasoning that no pathological change is needed to establish a consequential condition, and that it is sufficient if the symptoms and restrictions are linked to the original injury.

After evaluating the medical and lay evidence presented, the court concluded that the applicant had indeed suffered consequential conditions in the right hip and lumbar spine. The court found that the evidence established a direct link between the knee injury and the consequential conditions experienced by the applicant. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the President of the Commission for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the extent of permanent impairment to all claimed body systems. This decision ensures that the applicant's claims are thoroughly assessed and appropriate compensation is awarded.

Orders