Briggs v HammondCare - [2025] NSWPIC 256

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Briggs v HammondCare [2025] NSWPIC 256
APPLICANT:	Karen Briggs
RESPONDENT:	HammondCare
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	6 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation in respect of a psychological injury; injury in the nature of an aggravation of a disease accepted; worker dismissed during probationary period following performance management; whether injury wholly or predominantly due to reasonable action with respect to discipline, performance appraisal and/or discipline pursuant to section 11A(1); meaning of “discipline” and “performance appraisal”; Held – respondent discharged its onus pursuant to section 11A(1); award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Award for the respondent. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ms Karen Briggs (the appellant) commenced employment as a dementia consultant with HammondCare (the respondent) in October 2019. The applicant claims that she sustained a psychological injury due to difficult experiences in the course of her employment. These included being targeted and constantly accused of doing tasks incorrectly, being accused of lying, being given insufficient time to rectify issues identified in a support plan and intentionally being given a more difficult caseload than her peers. The applicant’s employment with the respondent was terminated during her probation period on 9 January 2020.
The applicant made a claim for compensation which was briefly accepted on 7 April 2020 before being disputed on 29 April 2020.
On 2 June 2021, the applicant made a claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) relying on an assessment by consultant psychiatrist, Dr Martin Allan dated 26 May 2021.
Liability to pay compensation was again disputed in a notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 22 December 2021.
The present proceedings were commenced by lodgement of an Application to Resolve a Dispute lodged in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 3 February 2025. The applicant seeks lump sum compensation in accordance with Dr Allan’s assessment.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The parties appeared before the Commission for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing on 5 May 2025 via Microsoft Teams. The applicant was represented by Mr William Lidden of counsel, instructed by Ms Shweta Dey. The respondent was represented by Mr Ross Hanrahan of counsel, instructed by Mr Denis Kim. A representative from the insurer was also present.
During the conciliation conference, the Application to Resolve a Dispute was amended to replace the deemed date of injury with “7 January 2020”. The respondent conceded that the applicant sustained a psychological injury pursuant to ss 4(b)(ii) and s 11A(3) of the 1987 Act. A defence to the claim pursuant to s 11A(1) of the 1987 Act was pressed.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the…

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 Briggs v HammondCare

Details

AGLC: Briggs v HammondCare [2025] NSWPIC 256
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 256
Decision Date: 6 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Briggs commenced proceedings against HammondCare in the Workers Compensation Claims Division of the District Court of New South Wales. The claim related to a psychological injury sustained by Briggs, which he alleged arose from his employment with HammondCare. Briggs sought a lump sum payment for his injury under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The central issue before the court was whether Briggs' injury was wholly or predominantly due to reasonable actions taken by HammondCare in respect of discipline, performance appraisal, or discipline, pursuant to section 11A(1) of the Act. The court had to interpret the meaning of "discipline" and "performance appraisal" within the context of the Act.

The court considered whether the dismissal of Briggs during his probationary period, following a performance management process, constituted reasonable action in the context of discipline or performance appraisal. The court examined the legislative framework and relevant case law to determine the appropriate scope of the terms "discipline" and "performance appraisal." The court held that HammondCare discharged its onus of proving that Briggs' injury was wholly or predominantly due to reasonable action taken in respect of discipline, performance appraisal, or discipline. Consequently, Briggs' claim for compensation was dismissed.

The court's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and its assessment of the facts led to the conclusion that the injury was not predominantly due to reasonable actions taken by HammondCare. As a result, the court found in favour of HammondCare and dismissed Briggs' claim for compensation.

Orders