Legal Research
Cases
BFZ v Inner West Council

BFZ v Inner West Council

Case [2024] NSWPIC 167 5 April 2024

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	BFZ v Inner West Council [2024] NSWPIC 167
APPLICANT:	BFZ
RESPONDENT:	Inner West Council
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	John Harris
DATE OF DECISION:	5 April 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; the applicant relied on a series of events at work; many of the events occurred; perception by worker that they were directed at her; applicant suffered from an underlying psychiatric condition which included symptoms of paranoia; misperception; Application of A-G v K; finding of injury pursuant to section 4(b)(ii); discussion of AV v AW; respondent failed to discharge onus that actions with respect to discipline wholly or predominantly caused injury; medical opinion did not consider other work events which were causative of injury; Held – finding of injury pursuant to section 4(b)(ii); section 11A defence failed; section 66 claim remitted to Medical Assessor.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: Findings 1. The employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation of the disease within the meaning of s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). 2. The applicant’s injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by action with respect to discipline under s 11A of the 1987 Act. Orders 3. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of the degree of permanent impairment as a result of psychological injury deemed to have occurred on 11 December 2019. The material set out at paragraph 36 of these Reasons is to be provided to the Medical Assessor with a copy of these Reasons. 4. The matter may be relisted following the provision of a Medical Assessment Certificate or the determination of any appeal to a Medical Appeal Panel.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

BFZ (the applicant) was employed as a Parking Officer and then Senior Parking Officer by Inner West Council (the respondent) from 3 April 2018. She alleges that a number of incidents at work either caused or aggravated a psychological condition.
The allegation of injury was pleaded in the Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) as occurring from 1 April 2018 to 11 December 2019 with the following injury description:
“Nature and conditions of employment as a Parking Officer from 1 April 2018 to 11 December 2019 involving incidents of bullying, harassment and verbal abuse by co-workers and incidents of verbal threats, intimidation and stalking by members of the public”.
During the arbitration hearing the applicant specified a series of events causing the injury from 3 April 2018 to 11 December 2019.[1]
[1] Transcript (T), p 20.
A direction dated 6 November 2023 noted the Application was amended to plead a deemed date of injury on 11 December 2019 based on s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). Weekly compensation was claimed until the expiry of the s 37 period of the 1987 Act.
At the hearing the applicant requested leave to also rely on s 4(b)(i) of the 1987 Act.[2] The respondent asserted…

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 BFZ v Inner West Council

Details

AGLC: BFZ v Inner West Council [2024] NSWPIC 167
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 167
Decision Date: 5 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

BFZ brought an application to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia against Inner West Council, seeking workers' compensation for a psychiatric injury sustained at work. BFZ claimed that a series of events at work, which she perceived to be directed at her, caused her psychiatric injury. The underlying condition of BFZ included symptoms of paranoia and misperception. The case involved interpreting statutory provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and applying the principles set out in A-G v K and AV v AW. The primary legal issue was whether the actions of the Council with respect to discipline were the predominant cause of BFZ's injury, and if the Council could rely on the section 11A defence. Another issue was whether the medical opinion provided adequately considered all work events that may have caused BFZ's injury.

The court considered the evidence presented and found that the Council failed to discharge the onus of proving that the disciplinary actions were wholly or predominantly the cause of BFZ's injury. The medical opinion did not take into account other work events that could have contributed to BFZ's condition. The court held that the injury was pursuant to section 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and dismissed the section 11A defence. The court remitted the section 66 claim to a Medical Assessor for further consideration.

The court ordered that the case be remitted to a Medical Assessor to determine the extent of BFZ's psychiatric injury and whether it was caused by the work events. The decision highlighted the importance of considering all relevant work events when assessing a worker's compensation claim. The Council was also ordered to pay BFZ's costs of the application.

Orders