Burke v Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER

CITATION:

Burke v Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPICPD 6

APPELLANT:

Belinda Burke

RESPONDENT:

Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd

INSURER:

Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd

FILE NUMBER:

A1-3872/20

MEMBER:

Mr J Wynyard

DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:

20 October 2020, amended 27 October 2020

DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:

23 April 2021

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION – section 261(4) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, failure to make a claim “occasioned by ignorance, mistake, absence from the State or other reasonable cause”, alleged factual error: application of Raulston v Toll Pty Ltd [2011] NSWWCCPD 25; 10 DDCR 156

PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:

Deputy President Michael Snell

HEARING:

On the papers

REPRESENTATION:

Appellant:

Ms M Ross, solicitor

Monaco Solicitors

Respondent:

Mr J Callaway, counsel

Hicksons Lawyers

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1.    To the extent that it is necessary, the identity of the respondent is amended from “Asteron Life” to “Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd”.

2.    The decision in the Amended Certificate of Determination dated 27 October 2020 is confirmed.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1. As a matter of housekeeping it should be noted that, at the arbitration hearing in this matter on 9 September 2020, the identity of the employer was amended by consent to be “Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd” in substitution for “Asteron Life”.[1] This was reflected in the written orders issued by the Commission. The documents subsequently lodged in this appeal did not reflect the amendment. To the extent that it is necessary, the employer’s identity in this appeal is amended to “Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd”.

   [1] Transcript of arbitration hearing, 9.9.20, (T), T 32.18–20.

2. Belinda Burke (the appellant) commenced working with Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd (the respondent) from about 28 July 2008. She was employed full-time as a claims support officer with the respondent’s ‘First Response Unit’. Her duties were mainly administrative and customer service. She answered telephone calls, prepared and opened new claims and entered information into a database.[2] She stated she was given an additional responsibility of training a new recruit, who she described as “Prianka” (she was unsure of the spelling of the name). The appellant said she had to work harder to accommodate Prianka’s mistakes. The appellant fell behind with her own work. The appellant sought treatment for anxiety. She suffered from panic attacks when commuting to work by train.[3] She collapsed at home on the night of Sunday, 6 September 2009 and did not work thereafter. She received sick leave, annual leave and unpaid leave. She made a claim for income protection benefits which was accepted, and she was paid income support by that insurer.[4]

   [2] Statement of Jamahl Wesser, 9.3.15, Reply, p 25; statement of appellant, 7.9.15, [10], [12], Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), p 2.

   [3] Appellant’s statement, 7.9.15, [14]–[19], ARD pp 3–4.

   [4] Appellant’s statement 7.9.15, [24]–[26].

3. The appellant lodged a workers compensation claim form dated 22 October 2014 in respect of the alleged psychological injury.[5] The…