Buttenshaw v CASPA Services Ltd - [2021] NSWPIC 182

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Buttenshaw v CASPA Services Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 182
APPLICANT:	Chiana Buttenshaw
RESPONDENT:	CASPA Services Ltd
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	11 June 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Psychological injury; claim for closed period of weekly benefits; whether applicant suffered workplace injury (section 4 of the 1987 Act); if so, whether injury was predominantly caused by the reasonable actions of the respondent in relation to discipline and/ or dismissal (section 11A of the 1987 Act); Held- Applicant suffered a workplace injury; Anderson Meat Packing Co Pty Ltd v Giacomantonio noted; the absence of corroboration of a psychological injury by way of complaint to a treating practitioner is not determinative of the presence of such an injury; Baker v Southern Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust followed; there is no requirement for corroboration in a civil case; Chanaa v Zarour noted; it is not necessary for a person to identify themselves as psychologically ill to find a psychological injury; Patrech v State of New South Wales followed; the respondent’s actions relied upon to ground a section 11A defence were not the predominant cause of the applicant’s injury; Hamad v Q Catering Ltd noted; Smith v Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales discussed; in any event, the respondent’s actions relied upon were not reasonable in the circumstances of the case; Irwin v Director General of Education, Ivanisevic v Laudet Pty Ltd, Commissioner of Police v Minahan and Ritchie v Department of Community Services followed; there being no issue as to capacity or preinjury earnings, the respondent is ordered to pay the applicant weekly compensation for the period claimed.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant suffered a psychological injury in the cause of her employment with the respondent with a deemed date of injury of 20 August 2020. 2. The applicant's employment with the respondent was the main contributing factor to her psychological injury. 3. The applicant's psychological injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by the reasonable actions of the respondent with respect to discipline or dismissal. 4. At the date of injury, the applicant's pre-injury average weekly earnings were $1,534.84. 5. Leave is granted to the applicant to amend the deemed date of injury to 20 August 2020. 6. Leave is granted to the applicant to amend the claim for weekly benefits to a close period of 20 August 2020 to 7 May 2021. 7. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation for the period 20 August 2020 to 7 May 2021 as follows: a. From 20 August 2020 to 19 November 2020 at $1,458 per week, pursuant to section 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and b. From 20 November 2020 to 7 May 2021 at $1,228 per week pursuant to section 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Chiana Buttenshaw (the applicant) alleges she suffered a psychological injury owing to bullying, unfair treatment and adverse workplace reactions in the course of her employment with Casper Services Ltd (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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Buttenshaw v CASPA Services Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWPIC 182
Decision Date: 11 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Buttenshaw, filed a claim for workers' compensation against the respondent, CASPA Services Ltd, seeking closed period weekly benefits for a psychological injury. The dispute was heard in the Industrial Court of Queensland. The main issues before the court were whether the applicant had suffered a workplace injury and, if so, whether the injury was predominantly caused by the respondent’s reasonable actions in relation to discipline or dismissal.

The court had to determine if the applicant's psychological injury arose from a workplace incident and if the respondent's actions were the predominant cause of that injury. The applicant argued that the psychological injury was a result of the workplace environment, while the respondent claimed that their actions were reasonable and did not predominantly cause the injury. The court noted that the absence of corroboration from a treating practitioner did not negate the presence of a psychological injury and that corroboration was not required in a civil case. The court further held that the respondent's actions, which included issuing a warning and dismissing the applicant, were not reasonable and did not predominantly cause the applicant’s psychological injury.

In light of the above, the court found that the applicant suffered a workplace injury. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant the weekly compensation for the period claimed. The court emphasised that the respondent’s actions were not reasonable and did not predominantly cause the psychological injury, thus the respondent was liable for the compensation. The decision followed several precedents which outlined the principles of reasonable actions and predominant causation in workers' compensation claims.

Orders