| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | Armour v Bluescope Steel Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 602 |
| APPLICANT: | Katherine Frances Armour |
| RESPONDENT: | BlueScope Steel Limited |
| MEMBER: | Gaius Whiffin |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 28 October 2024 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for psychological injury; claims for weekly benefits compensation, treatment expenses pursuant to section 60, and lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66; consideration of applicant’s and witnesses’ statements, medical reports and other treatment records, claim correspondence, as well as factual and contractual material; respondent accepts that the applicant sustained a psychological injury to which her employment was the main contributing factor but relies upon a defence to her claim pursuant to section 11A alleging that the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by it with regard to ‘transfer’; consideration as to whether the respondent can establish that its action amounted to ‘transfer’; Manly Pacific International Hotel Pty Ltd v Doyle, Wilson v Qantas Airways Limited, Smith v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW, Pirie v Franklins Limited, Department of Education and Training v Sinclair, Shore v Tumbarumba Shire Council, Ninkovic v Sydney Children’s Hospital Network (Westmead), White v Commissioner of Police, Jeffery v Lintipal Pty Ltd, Canterbury Bankstown Council v Gazi, McCarthy v Department of Corrective Services, Insurance Australia Group Services Pty Ltd v Outram, BlueScope Steel Ltd v Markovski, Northern NSW Local Health Network v Heggie, and A1 Granny Flats v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer considered; Held – the respondent has failed to establish (pursuant to section 11A) that its action which led to the applicant’s psychological injury amounted to ‘transfer’; its defence to the applicant’s claim fails; the applicant’s claim pursuant to section 66 is referred to a Medical Assessor; the applicant’s remaining claims (which will be potentially affected by the degree of whole person impairment found during medical assessment) are referred to a preliminary conference following the completion of the medical assessment process. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | The Commission determines: 1. As a result of employment events and circumstances during her employment with the respondent, the applicant sustained a psychological injury in accordance with s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). 2. The applicant’s psychological injury will be deemed to have occurred on 23 June 2021. 3. The respondent has failed to establish (pursuant to s 11A of the 1987 Act) that the applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominately caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by it with respect to transfer. The Commission orders: 1. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) for assessment as follows: Date of injury: 23 June 2021 (deemed). Body systems/parts: psychiatric and psychological disorders. Method of assessment: whole person impairment. 2. The documents to be reviewed by the… |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Armour v Bluescope Steel Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] NSWPIC 602
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the respondent's actions constituted a 'transfer' under section 11A and if the respondent could successfully rely on this defence. The court examined various authorities, including Manly Pacific International Hotel Pty Ltd v Doyle, Wilson v Qantas Airways Limited, and others, to understand the scope and application of 'transfer' in the context of workers' compensation claims. The court considered the facts of the case, medical reports, and relevant statutory provisions to assess if the respondent's actions met the criteria for a 'transfer'.
After thorough deliberation, the court found that the respondent had not demonstrated that its actions amounted to a 'transfer' as required by section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Consequently, the respondent's defence was unsuccessful. The court referred Armour's claim for a lump sum compensation to a Medical Assessor for further evaluation. Additionally, the remaining claims, which would be influenced by the degree of whole person impairment determined during the medical assessment, were directed to a preliminary conference following the completion of the medical assessment process.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.