BDJ v Digital Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd - [2022] NSWPIC 648

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
Citation:	BDJ v Digital Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] NSWPIC 648
APPLICANT:	BDJ
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Digital Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	BEL
THIRD RESPONDENT:	BFE
senior Member:	Elizabeth Beilby
DATE OF DECISION:	22 November 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Matter involving suicide; determination in relation to injury and consideration of section 14(3) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; Held – finding in favour of the applicant.
determinations made:	1. The deceased worker, BCR died on 17 October 2018, as a result of injuries sustained during the course of his employment with the respondent. 2. BDJ, BEL and BFE were all dependent for support upon the deceased as at the date of death. 3. The deceased had no other persons dependent upon him. 4. The deceased’s death was not caused by an intentional self-inflicted injury. 5. The first respondent is liable for the payment of lump sum compensation and funeral expenses. 6. The lump sum of $798,100 payable pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 is to be apportioned in accordance with s 9 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as follows: (a) $598,100 to BDJ; (b) $100,000 to BEL. and (c) $100,000 to BFE. 7. The first respondent is to pay lump sum compensation pursuant to s 85(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 to the dependants as follows: (a) $598,100 to BDJ; (b) $100,000 to BEL, and (c) $100,000 to BFE. 8. The first respondent is to pay the applicant $13,389 in respect of funeral expenses. 9. This decision is not suitable for publication. If publication is deemed necessary, all parties should be deidentified.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

BCR (the deceased) commenced employment with Digital diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd (first respondent) in 2010. He worked in the IT department and was involved with maintaining back-ups and hardware. These being important duties providing for shared storage of data.
A restructure of the IT department took place in June 2018. This affected the functions and teams within the department.
BCR felt concern in relation to his workload and the repeated failure of the back-up systems. BDJ (the applicant) has provided clear evidence as to the psychological deterioration of her husband from August 2018.
BCR was admitted to Northside Clinic on 4 October 2018 where he remained as an inpatient until 17 October 2018.
On 17 October 2018 BCR had left the clinic and was involved in a fatal accident with a bus on the Pacific Highway. The available evidence suggests that he deliberately came in contact with the bus.
BDJ, together with her twin daughters BEL (second respondent) and Caitlyn (third respondent), seek payment of the lump sum benefit payable pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act).

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) Did the applicant suffer an injury pursuant to s 4 of the 1987 Act?
(b) Was employment the main contributing factor to a psychological…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading BDJ v Digital Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: BDJ v Digital Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 648
Case: [2022] NSWPIC 648
Decision Date: 22 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of BDJ v Digital Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd, the applicant sought a determination regarding whether their injury was sustained in the course of employment and if the employer was required to compensate them under section 14(3) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The applicant, who worked for Digital Diagnostic Imaging, alleged that their suicide was a result of work-related psychological stress. The Federal Circuit Court was tasked with deciding whether the applicant's suicide constituted an injury within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's suicide was an injury sustained in the course of employment and if the employer was liable to compensate under section 14(3) of the Act. The court needed to determine if the applicant's psychological injury arose out of their employment and if the employer had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the injury. The court considered the applicant's medical evidence and the circumstances surrounding the applicant's employment, particularly focusing on the work environment and stressors.

The court held that the applicant's suicide was an injury sustained in the course of employment. It found that the applicant's work-related psychological stress was a significant factor contributing to their suicide. The court determined that the employer had not taken reasonable steps to address the psychological stressors present in the workplace, which led to the applicant's injury. Consequently, the court found the employer liable to compensate the applicant under section 14(3) of the Workers Compensation Act. The court ordered the employer to provide compensation to the applicant's estate for the injury sustained.

Orders