Case Note: Thantrige v Workers’ Compensation Regulator
Citation: [2025] QIRC 003
Jurisdiction: Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
Date: 10 January 2025
Decision Maker: Member Pidgeon IC
Background
Mr Wahala Thantrige was employed as a chef at a resort on K’gari (formerly Fraser Island). On 27 March 2021, he sustained an injury to his left knee after slipping and falling in the kitchen. A claim for this injury was accepted by WorkCover.
In November 2021, approximately nine months later, Mr Thantrige lodged a second claim for an injury to his right knee, which he alleged was also sustained as a result of the original workplace incident. This claim was rejected by WorkCover in a decision dated 8 June 2023, and the Workers’ Compensation Regulator (WCR) affirmed that decision. Mr Thantrige appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC).
Issues for Determination
The key issues before the Commission were:
- Whether Mr Thantrige’s right knee injury arose out of or in the course of his employment.
2. If so, whether his employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury.
Evidence and Submissions
Applicant’s Account:
Mr Thantrige testified that following his left knee injury, he was unable to bear weight on that leg and had to hop on his right leg to move across uneven terrain, including sand, stairs, and a sloping ramp, to reach a barge and then a car for transport to hospital. He was not provided with crutches or a wheelchair until he arrived at the hospital.
He reported experiencing right knee pain the day after the incident, which worsened over time. He claimed to have informed his general practitioner, surgeon, and physiotherapist of these symptoms, who initially reassured him that the pain was likely due to compensating for his left knee injury. On 30 September 2021, he reported that his right knee pain exceeded that of the left during physiotherapy exercises. An MRI later revealed a medial meniscal tear in the right knee.
Respondent’s Position:
The Regulator argued that Mr Thantrige’s account of the right knee injury was a “matter of recent invention.” It contended that there was no contemporaneous medical evidence supporting the claim that the right knee injury was work-related or occurred on 27 March 2021.
Medical Evidence:
Two independent medical experts provided opinions:
Expert 1 supported the applicant’s claim, stating that Mr Thantrige likely sustained a soft tissue injury to the right knee during the fall, which was aggravated by prolonged abnormal weight-bearing. This could have caused the meniscal tear.
Expert 2 disagreed, asserting that a meniscal tear would typically present with immediate and severe symptoms, and that hopping on the right leg would not cause such an injury. This expert believed there was insufficient evidence to link the injury to the workplace incident.
Findings
The Commission accepted that Mr Thantrige had suffered a right knee meniscal tear, as confirmed by MRI. It found:
- Mr Thantrige was a credible and honest witness, contrary to the Regulator’s assertions.
- There was no evidence of any pre-existing right knee condition or intervening event.
- The opinion of Expert 1 was more consistent with the factual circumstances and medical history.
On the balance of probabilities, the Commission concluded that the right knee injury was either sustained during the original incident or as a direct consequence of the injury and subsequent mobility challenges. Therefore, the injury:
- Arose out of or in the course of employment, and
- Employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury.
Conclusion
The Commission allowed Mr Thantrige’s appeal, finding in his favour that the right knee injury was compensable under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act.