Fiddes v Secora APII Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 564

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Fiddes v Secora APII Pty Ltd & Ors [2024] NSWPIC 564
APPLICANT:	Catherine Fiddes
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Secora APII Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Nathan Fiddes
THIRD RESPONDENT:	James Fiddes
FOURTH RESPONDENT:	Alison Fiddes
SENIOR MEMBER:	Elizabeth Beilby
DATE OF DECISION:	11 October 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump the lump sum death benefit pursuant to section 25; the deceased travelled to regional New South Wales for work; discussion as to the finding of inferences, which included poor dietary intake and lack of sleep arising from his work duties together with plane travel; discussion of sections 9A and 9B; acceptance of medical opinion so far as causation was concerned, where no competing medical evidence is relied upon; Held – the applicant has satisfied the requirements of both sections 9A and 9B.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The deceased suffered employment injury on 24 May 2023 while in the course of his employment, which resulted in the death of the deceased on that date. 2. The deceased’s employment was a ‘main contributing factor’ to the injury which resulted in his death. 3. The nature of the relevant employment gave rise to a significantly greater risk of injury that had the deceased not been employed in employment of that nature. 4. The matter is listed for further preliminary telephone conference to ventilate issues including any claim in respect of apportionment, weekly benefits, interest and funeral expenses.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Michael Fiddes died on 24 May 2023. At that time, he was away in the course of his employment and unfortunately passed away alone in a hotel in Muswellbrook as a result of a severe coronary atherosclerosis and there was an almost complete occlusion of the proximal left descending artery by calcified atherosclerosis.
The family members seek the lump sum death benefit. There are two limbs upon which the claim is made.
The primary limb is in relation to the effect of plane travel, altered diet and/or impaired sleep on the deceased (which arose out of the requirement to travel in his employment). It was submitted that each of these independently and together gave rise to a significantly greater risk of suffering a heart attack injury.
The second limb is that as the deceased was away from home without any assistance, any chance of survival was taken away from him when he suffered his occlusion. If he had been at home, his wife would have been in a position to be able to assist him and hopefully save his life.
Evidence has been given by the applicant’s wife, Mrs Catherine Fiddes, who describes what she understands to be the nature of his employment whilst away from home.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) Was employment a substantial contributing factor to Mr Fiddes death pursuant to s 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act)?
(b) Did employment give rise to…

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 Fiddes v Secora APII Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Fiddes v Secora APII Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 564
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 564
Decision Date: 11 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fiddes v Secora APII Pty Ltd involved the applicant, the executor of the estate of a deceased employee, lodging a claim for a lump sum death benefit under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The deceased, who worked for the respondent, had travelled to regional New South Wales for work, and the application raised issues pertaining to whether the travel and work duties of the deceased contributed to his death. The matter was heard in the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the Tribunal centred on whether the deceased's travel and work duties, specifically poor dietary intake and lack of sleep, constituted sufficient evidence to infer that these factors contributed to the deceased's death. The Tribunal had to determine whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of sections 9A and 9B of the Act, particularly in the context of the medical opinion presented and the lack of competing evidence.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had met the criteria set out in sections 9A and 9B of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. It found that the evidence presented, including the medical opinion, adequately supported the inference that the deceased's work duties and associated travel were causative factors in his death. The Tribunal noted that the absence of competing medical evidence strengthened the applicant's case.

As a result, the Tribunal determined in favour of the applicant, finding that the deceased's work-related factors were indeed contributing factors to his death. The Tribunal ruled that the applicant was entitled to the lump sum death benefit pursuant to section 25 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders