| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | BTV v CKV [2024] NSWPIC 358 |
| APPLICANT: | BTV |
| RESPONDENT: | CKV |
| MEMBER: | John Turner |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 19 July 2024 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; sections 4, 11A(1) and (3), 36, 37, 38 and 60; psychological injury; injury disputed; section 11A(1) defence that injury wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by the respondent with respect to discipline; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Attorney General’s Department v K, AV v AW, Ariton Mitic v Rail Corporation of NSW, Jackson v Work Directions Australia Pty Ltd, Ponnan v George Weston Foods Ltd, and Manly Pacific International Hotel Pty Ltd v Doyle considered and applied; Held – applicant sustained a psychological injury arising out of or in the course of her employment; applicant’s employment was the main contributing factor to the psychological injury; applicant’s injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of the respondent in respect to discipline; applicant has had no current work capacity to date. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | The Commission determines: 1. By consent the name of the respondent is amended by inserting “Pty Limited” after “Services”. 2. The applicant sustained a psychological injury arising out of or in the course of her employment on the deemed date of 17 March 2021. 3. The applicant’s employment was the main contributing factor to the psychological injury. 4. The applicant’s injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of the respondent in respect to discipline. 5. The applicant has had no current work capacity from 17 March 2021 to date and has no current work capacity. 6. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the following: (a) $943.22 per week ($992.86 x .95) from 17 March 2021 to 31 March 2021 pursuant to s 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act); (b) $969 per week ($1,020 x .95) from 1 April 2021 to 15 June 2021 pursuant to s 36 of the 1987 Act; (c) $816 per week ($1,020 x .80) from 16 June 2021 to 30 September 2021 pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act; (d) $824 per week ($1,030 x .80) from 1 October 2021 to 31 March 2022 pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act; (e) $840 per week ($1,050 x .80) from 1 April 2022 to 30 September 2022 pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act; (f) $872 per week ($1,090 x .80) from 1 October 2022 to 31 March 2023 pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act; (g) $912 per week ($1,140 x .80) from 1 April 2023 to 12 September 2023 pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act; (h) $912 per week ($1,040 x .80) from 13 September 2023 to 30 September 2023 pursuant to s 38 of the 1987… |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read BTV v CKV 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 358
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the statutory provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and relevant case law. It noted that the applicant's employment as a registered nurse was the main contributing factor to her psychological injury, and there was no evidence to support the respondent's contention that the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable disciplinary action. The court referred to several precedent cases, including Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Attorney General’s Department v K, AV v AW, Ariton Mitic v Rail Corporation of NSW, Jackson v Work Directions Australia Pty Ltd, Ponnan v George Weston Foods Ltd, and Manly Pacific International Hotel Pty Ltd v Doyle, which reinforced the understanding that the applicant's injury was work-related. The court concluded that the applicant's employment was the predominant cause of her psychological injury and that it did not arise from disciplinary action taken by the respondent.
Consequently, the court found in favour of the applicant. The court held that the applicant sustained a psychological injury arising out of or in the course of her employment, and her injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable disciplinary action. The applicant's claim for compensation was successful. The court ordered the respondent to pay compensation to the applicant for the psychological injury sustained, and the applicant was to be awarded weekly compensation payments.
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.