Davis v Secretary, Department of Education

The case of Davis v Secretary, Department of Education involved a claim by the applicant, Ms Davis, who sought workers’ compensation for a psychological injury she sustained while working as a school learning support officer. The respondent, the Secretary of the Department of Education, argued that the injury was not related to Ms Davis’s employment but rather resulted from the NSW Government’s public health orders mandating double vaccination against COVID-19. The matter was heard in the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Ms Davis’s psychological injury arose out of or in the course of her employment or if it was caused by the public health orders. A further issue was whether the respondent had established the defence under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court needed to determine whether the respondent’s failure to have Ms Davis medically examined constituted a failure to establish this defence.

The Commission found that Ms Davis’s employment with the respondent was both a substantial contributing factor to her injury and the main contributing factor to the aggravation of the disease. The court held that the psychological injury arose out of or in the course of Ms Davis’s employment and that the respondent had not established the defence under section 11A. The Commission considered cases such as Strinic v Singh, Bjekic v State of NSW, Smith v Australian Woollen Mills Ltd, Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Ltd t/as Commander Australia Pty Ltd, Nunan v Cockatoo Island Docks & Engineering Co Ltd, Attorney General v K, and Hamad v Q Catering Limited in reaching its decision. Consequently, the Commission ordered the respondent to pay Ms Davis weekly benefits compensation and treatment expenses.

The final orders were that the respondent was to pay Ms Davis weekly benefits compensation pursuant to sections 36(1) and 37(1) of the 1987 Act and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60 of the 1987 Act. The respondent was also directed to cover the costs of the application.