Probst's Battle with ACC: A Tennis Injury's Aftermath

On a summer court, in a family doubles match that should have been nothing more than a friendly hit-out, one serve changed everything for Probst.

He was playing alongside his wife, facing his daughter and son-in-law. About three-quarters of the way through the first set, the former competitive tennis player tossed the ball up, drove through his motion, and felt something go.

“Right after I hit the serve, I thought, wow, my shoulder hurts.”

He carried on. Competitors do. But by the next set, the pain had taken over. He could no longer hit a backhand without feeling it bite. The game that had been part of his life since childhood suddenly turned on him.

The following month, Probst went looking for answers. X-ray. Ultrasound. Then an appointment with his orthopaedic surgeon. The scans told the story his body already knew: an MRI showed a full-thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon, 16mm of tendon retraction, tendinopathy and muscle atrophy.

The surgeon recommended surgical repair.

ACC said no.

In January 2025, on the advice of its clinical adviser – a physiotherapist – ACC declined cover. The adviser decided the way the injury was recorded didn’t fit with a traumatic tear. Notes described Probst “hitting the ball awkwardly and hurting his shoulder” and, elsewhere, “doing an awkward overhead shot and wrenching his shoulder”. To the adviser, that didn’t sound like the sort of unexpected, high-energy force usually associated with a rotator cuff tearing in an instant.

Age, tendon retraction, tendinopathy, muscle changes – all of it, the physiotherapist argued, pointed away from a clear-cut accident and toward degeneration.

Probst was having none of it. He said the description stripped the moment of its violence, glossing over the power of the serve he unleashed that day. A lifetime on court gave him a good feel for speed, and he estimated the serve at about 112km/h – significantly harder than anything else he hit in that match.

He had the résumé to back his instinct. He’d played tennis since childhood. Before the injury he swam three times a week, surfed, paddled, stayed active. He had never had shoulder problems. After the serve, all of that stopped. No tennis. No swimming. No surfing. No paddling. He avoided pulling or lifting with his right arm.

First, he took on ACC alone.

“Because it was wrong,” he said of his decision to keep fighting. “When people are trying to get away with something that is incorrect and take advantage of people’s unwillingness or inability to challenge stuff, that just gets me fired up.”

Eventually, he hired a lawyer. The case went to review.

This time, someone listened.

The reviewer found that the tear was caused by the February 2024 accident on court, not wholly or substantially by any pre-existing condition or degenerative process. Crucially, the reviewer noted that ACC’s clinical adviser had not considered the mechanism of injury as Probst described it and had not seen the original ultrasound or initial physiotherapy notes before forming an opinion.

The details that were missing from ACC’s decision became central in the review. Probst had experienced immediate pain. There was a clear, tight link in time between the serve and his symptoms. He had been “incredibly active for his age” with no history of shoulder trouble. The MRI, the reviewer pointed out, did not show moderate or severe degeneration.

The decision was blunt about the earlier assessment.

“Ultimately, [the ACC physiotherapist] has misunderstood the mechanism of injury, has commented without a full clinical picture, and has not provided any reasoning on why he considers that the injury was caused wholly or substantially by degeneration, with a no more than minimal contribution by the accident event,” the ruling said.

The reviewer also drew a sharp line between the experts. Probst’s orthopaedic surgeon had examined him in person. The physiotherapist had carried out a paper review. On that basis, the reviewer found the surgeon better qualified to give an opinion on the tear.

Inside ACC, there is an acceptance that these calls are not simple. ACC head of service operations Phil Riley described cases like Probst’s as “clinically complex”.

“Cases like Mr Probst’s, where ACC is assessing whether a condition was caused by an accident or degenerative changes can be clinically complex, and clinical professionals may reach different conclusions despite assessing the same information,” Riley said.

He stressed that treating specialists have an important role, but that their views sit alongside other medical information, and ACC can seek more specialist advice when needed. He pointed to guidelines developed with orthopaedic specialists “to help support consistent and accurate decision making”.

In Probst’s case, ACC believed that, based on the evidence and those guidelines, it could not conclude his condition was caused by the accident.

That changed once the review hearing unfolded.

Riley said Probst provided extra information during that process. ACC accepted the reviewer’s decision, approved cover and funded his surgery.

For Probst, the victory came with a sting.

“I was happy that the time and the money that I’d expended, and the mental effort had paid off, that you could prevail against an unjust decision.
“But it is bittersweet because it could have been done a year earlier and I could have risked further injury during that time period.”

The reviewer awarded him $1218.13 in review costs. After ACC’s contribution, he was still left out of pocket by $3206.87 in legal fees.

Riley emphasised that reviews themselves are free to lodge. Clients do not need a lawyer, he said, and can represent themselves or be supported by an advocate, family member or other representative. ACC may contribute to review-related costs and offers a free Navigation Service to provide independent guidance and support.

Behind Probst’s story sits a broader trend.

ACC figures show the proportion of rotator cuff surgery purchase orders declined has climbed sharply, from 22% in 2024 to 35% in 2025. Across all orthopaedic surgery, the decline rate has risen from 18% to 26%.

Those numbers, and the stories he has heard from others, pushed Probst to speak publicly. He believes there are people out there quietly accepting decisions they don’t think are right.

His message to anyone in that position is short and sharp.