Thurling and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act) for injuries to his left and right knees. The Applicant sought to establish that he had sustained an injury to his right knee during a workplace incident on 28 August 2007, and that a subsequent knee replacement was reasonably required as a result of that injury. The reviewable decisions under consideration were made by the Respondent, Comcare.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant's right knee condition constituted an 'injury' for the purposes of section 14 of the SRC Act, and if so, whether the total knee replacement surgery was medical treatment reasonably required in relation to that injury under section 16 of the SRC Act. The Applicant contended that he had suffered an injury to his right knee during the incident, while Comcare argued that the evidence did not support this claim and that any aggravation of an underlying osteoarthritic condition was not caused by the incident.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's evidence and the medical records, including contemporaneous notes from his General Practitioner, Dr Bate. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not report any right knee symptoms to Dr Bate in the period immediately following the 28 August 2007 incident, despite multiple attendances for his left knee injury. The Applicant's own evidence suggested that right knee symptoms began approximately two and a half months after the incident, in mid-November 2007. Based on this, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant did not sustain an injury to his right knee during the workplace incident.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the total knee replacement surgery performed in November 2009 was not reasonably required in relation to an injury for the purposes of section 16 of the SRC Act. The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decisions dated 2 March 2017 and 26 April 2017.