AC v Ad

[2009] NSWWCCPD 110

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:		AC v AD [2009] NSWWCCPD 110
APPELLANT:		AC
RESPONDENT:		AD
INSURER:		StateCover Mutual Limited
FILE NUMBER:		A1 – 8797/08
ARBITRATOR:	Ms M Trenerry
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:		12 May 2009
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:		7 September 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:		Sections 11A, 38, 38A and 40 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; causation of injury
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:		Deputy President Kevin O’Grady
REPRESENTATION:		Appellant:	Hicksons
Respondent:	White Barnes
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:		1.  Paragraphs two and three of the Arbitrator’s decision dated 12 May 2009 are revoked and the following orders are made in their place:
“(2) The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly benefits pursuant to section 40 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as follows: $367.70 from 26 February 2008 to 31 March 2008 $374.90 from 1 April 2008 to 30 September 2008 $381.40 from 1 October 2008 to 31 March 2009 $389.10 from 1 April 2009 to date and continuing
(3)   The respondent is to have credit in respect of payments of weekly benefits made during the period 27 October 2007 to 25 February 2008.”
2.  Paragraphs one, four and five of the Arbitrator’s determination dated 12 May 2009 are confirmed.
3.    The Arbitrator’s determination is to be further amended by the inclusion of the following order: “(6)   Respondent to pay medical and hospital expenses (section 60) upon production of accounts or receipts.”
4.  The appellant is to pay the worker’s costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

1. On 9 June 2009 the appellant employer (‘AC’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 12 May 2009.

1. The Respondent to the Appeal is the worker (‘AD’).

1. The worker commenced employment with the appellant on 3 August 2005. Her position with the appellant was that of Chief Information Officer, a senior staff position (CIO). Her duties in that role involved the planning and direction of information management, policies and processes in consultation with senior management. In March 2007 certain organisational changes were effected in the workplace and the worker was assigned to Corporate Services and was required to report to the Corporate Services Manager (‘CSM’).

1. On 7 May 2007 the Manager Information Services (‘MIS’) commenced employment with the appellant. There is evidence that following the appointment of the MIS tension existed between that individual and the worker. That tension led in due course to considerable conflict and it is the worker’s case that the tension and conflict was brought about by reason of the MIS’s conduct. 

1. During the second half of 2007 the worker had occasion to approach senior officers of the appellant concerning the MIS’s conduct. Those approached included the CSM and an unnamed Human Resources Manager. The worker has stated that, having regard to the MIS’s behaviour since his appointment, she had been “marginalised”. The worker encountered difficulties communicating with the MIS and little…