Kathi v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2026] QIRC 287
Kathi concerned whether a worker remained entitled to weekly compensation and medical expenses after an accepted work-related exacerbation of pre-existing bilateral thumb osteoarthritis.
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission found that the work-related exacerbation had resolved. Although Mr Kathi continued to experience pain, incapacity, and require treatment, the Commission accepted that these ongoing problems resulted from his underlying osteoarthritis rather than the work-related injury.
Background
Mr Kathi had worked for Coles for approximately 12 years, including as a store manager at Coles Express. His duties involved frequent use of his hands and wrists, including opening cartons, handling stock, carrying milk crates, restocking shelves and fridges, and cleaning fuel pumps.
In January 2022, Mr Kathi developed severe pain in both thumbs. Imaging revealed marked degeneration of the carpometacarpal joints.
His compensation claim was initially rejected by the insurer, but that decision was set aside on review and the claim was accepted. The accepted work-related injury was subsequently characterised as an exacerbation of pre-existing severe bilateral carpometacarpal osteoarthritis.
In September 2023, the insurer stopped Mr Kathi’s weekly compensation and payment of medical expenses on the basis that the work-related exacerbation had resolved and his continuing incapacity was attributable to the underlying osteoarthritis.
The Regulator confirmed that decision on review, and Mr Kathi appealed to the QIRC.
What was the issue?
Under ss 144A and 144B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), the Commission was required to consider whether Mr Kathi’s incapacity because of the work-related injury had ceased and whether he continued to require medical treatment for that injury.
Mr Kathi argued that his work had caused the osteoarthritis itself, rather than merely exacerbated a pre-existing condition. He relied principally on the opinion of his treating general practitioner, who considered his many years of repetitive and awkward hand use at work to be contributing factors in the development of the condition.
The medical evidence
Three specialists disagreed with the treating GP’s opinion.
The occupational physician, hand surgeon, and orthopaedic surgeon considered the osteoarthritis to be an underlying degenerative condition that had not been caused by Mr Kathi’s employment. They accepted that work could have temporarily exacerbated the condition, but considered that exacerbation to have resolved.
The Commission preferred the specialist evidence. In doing so, it considered the doctors’ relevant expertise, the reasoning supporting their opinions, their consideration of Mr Kathi’s actual work duties, and the medical literature upon which they relied.
Importantly, the Commission accepted that Mr Kathi continued to experience genuine symptoms and incapacity. The question was whether those ongoing problems remained attributable to the accepted work-related injury.
The decision
The Commission found that Mr Kathi had pre-existing bilateral carpometacarpal osteoarthritis and that his work-related injury had been an exacerbation of that condition.
That exacerbation had resolved. His continuing symptoms and incapacity were attributable to the underlying osteoarthritis, rather than the work-related exacerbation.
Accordingly, his entitlement to weekly compensation had ceased under s 144A. Although he might require further treatment for his osteoarthritis, he no longer required treatment for the work-related exacerbation for the purposes of s 144B.
The appeal was dismissed, and the Regulator’s review decision was confirmed.
Key takeaways
- Continuing symptoms do not necessarily mean that an accepted work-related aggravation or exacerbation remains ongoing.
- Where a worker has an underlying condition, the Commission may need to distinguish between incapacity caused by the accepted work injury and incapacity caused by the underlying condition.
- Competing medical opinions are assessed by reference to the evidence as a whole, including the experts’ reasoning, relevant expertise, supporting material, and evidence tested at hearing.
- Further treatment for an underlying condition does not necessarily establish an ongoing entitlement to medical expenses for a work-related aggravation that has resolved.
The information on this page is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.