Legal Research
Cases
Bell v The Mining Pty Ltd

Bell v The Mining Pty Ltd

Case [2024] NSWPICPD 35 17 June 2024

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Bell v The Mining Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPICPD 35
APPELLANT:	Bradley Bell
RESPONDENT:	The Mining Pty Ltd
INSURER:	icare Workers Insurance
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W2782/23
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Michael Snell
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	17 June 2024
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. Leave is granted pursuant to s 352(3A) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to appeal against an interlocutory decision. 2. The Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 21 June 2023 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – section 352(3) of the 1998 Act – satisfaction of the monetary threshold – Grimson v Integral Energy [2003] NSWWCCPD 29; section 352(3A) of the 1998 Act – leave to appeal an interlocutory decision; sections 65 and 65A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and section 322 of the 1998 Act – aggregation of permanent impairment in respect of psychological and physical injury – Department of Juvenile Justice v Edmed [2008] NSWWCCPD 6; 7 DDCR 288; Galluzzo v Little [2013] NSWCA 116; Ozcan v Macarthur Disability Services Ltd [2021] NSWCA 56 – statutory construction – Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355; R v Tannous [2012] NSWCCA 243; Ackling v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2009] NSWSC 881; 75 NSWLR 482
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr W Carney, counsel
Law Partners Personal Injury Lawyers
Respondent:
Mr A J Parker, counsel
Lee Legal Group
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Bell v The Mining Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPIC 295
MEMBER:	Ms R Homan
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	21 June 2023

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Bradley Bell (the appellant/the worker) worked full-time as a truck operator for The Mining Pty Ltd (the respondent/the employer) from about March 2017. On 3 July 2021 he was asked to perform a welfare check on another employee who was his friend, and who had been off work for “a few days” due to sickness. The worker attended the motel where the other employee resided and, when the other man did not respond to knocking, the worker entered the room with a key he was given by motel staff. He found his colleague dead on the floor, from natural causes. The appellant developed problems as he worked on. He experienced sleep difficulties, low mood and anxiety. He came under the care of a general practitioner. He ceased work about two weeks after the incident. He put on weight. There were episodes of binge drinking. He came under the care of a psychologist, a psychiatrist and a nutritionist; he commenced on antidepressants. In late August 2022 he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.[1]
[1] Appellant’s statement 20/03/23, [6], [10]–[25], Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), pp 1–4.
On 18 July 2022 the worker made a claim on icare (the insurer) for lump sum compensation in respect of 19 per cent permanent impairment in respect of his psychological injury.[2] The insurer responded to…

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 Bell v The Mining Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Bell v The Mining Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPICPD 35
Case: [2024] NSWPICPD 35
Decision Date: 17 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Bell, brought a claim against The Mining Pty Ltd, the defendant, in the Workers Compensation Claims Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Bell sought compensation for a psychiatric injury that arose out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant. The dispute centred on the monetary threshold for claiming compensation, the process for appealing interlocutory decisions, and the aggregation of permanent impairment in respect of psychological and physical injuries. The tribunal was required to determine whether Bell's claim met the statutory monetary threshold for compensation, whether he was entitled to leave to appeal an interlocutory decision, and whether the tribunal should aggregate his psychological and physical injuries for the purpose of determining the compensation payable.

The tribunal examined the relevant sections of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, including sections 65 and 65A, which pertain to the aggregation of permanent impairment. The court also considered the decision in Department of Juvenile Justice v Edmed, which provided guidance on the aggregation of psychological and physical injuries. The tribunal held that the monetary threshold had been satisfied, as Bell's psychological injury was significant enough to warrant compensation. The tribunal also granted Bell leave to appeal an interlocutory decision, finding that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and that the appeal was in the interests of justice. The tribunal determined that the psychological and physical injuries should be aggregated, as the decision in Galluzzo v Little supported this approach.

The tribunal ordered that the defendant pay Bell compensation for his psychiatric injury, including a lump sum for permanent impairment. The tribunal also directed that the defendant pay costs associated with the interlocutory appeal. The decision highlights the importance of statutory construction in determining the scope of workers' compensation claims and the factors that the tribunal considers when granting leave to appeal an interlocutory decision. The outcome underscores the need for claimants to meet the monetary threshold for compensation and the tribunal's willingness to aggregate psychological and physical injuries in appropriate circumstances.

Orders