Wragg and Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Travis Wragg against Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd regarding workers' compensation. The dispute centred on two key issues: the reasonableness of proposed surgery for an elbow injury under section 16 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth), and the applicant's alleged incapacity for work under section 19 of the same Act. The decision was made by A Poljak SM.

The court was required to determine whether the surgery recommended by Dr Gupta for the applicant's elbow injury was reasonable in the circumstances, considering conflicting medical opinions. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the applicant was unfit to perform his pre-injury duties, a determination influenced by various medical reports and the applicant's own evidence regarding his capacity and pain levels.

In relation to the proposed surgery, the court preferred the evidence of Dr Gupta, the applicant's treating orthopaedic surgeon, who specialised in upper-limb surgery and had been involved in the applicant's care since shortly after the injury. Dr Gupta's opinion that the surgery had reasonable prospects of improving the applicant's range of motion and reducing pain was supported by other orthopaedic surgeons, Dr Smith and Dr New. The court found the opinions of these specialists more persuasive than those of Dr Wallace, Dr Maxwell, and Dr Harvey, particularly noting that Dr Wallace was no longer a practicing orthopaedic surgeon and had not performed surgery for five years, with his sub-specialty being knee surgery. The court also noted that Dr Maxwell and Dr Harvey had not examined the applicant for a considerable period prior to the hearing. Regarding the applicant's capacity for work, the court found the evidence substantiating his claim of incapacity to be lacking. It preferred the medical evidence indicating the applicant was fit for his pre-injury duties, albeit with restrictions on lifting and pushing/pulling, and that he had in fact undertaken these duties during the relevant period.

Consequently, the court set aside the decision under review in application 2017/3156 and substituted a decision that Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd was liable under section 16 for the cost of the surgery recommended by Dr Gupta. In application 2017/3155, the decision under review was affirmed. The parties were given seven days to file submissions on costs if no agreement was reached.