Gacayan v Success Ventures Pty Ltd - [2022] NSWPIC 109

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Gacayan v Success Ventures Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 109
APPLICANT:	Cesar Gacayan
RESPONDENT:	Success Ventures Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	17 March 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Psychological injury claim for permanent impairment compensation and medical expenses; whether applicant suffered psychological injury in course of employment, and if so, whether it was caused by the respondent’s reasonable actions with respect to discipline, promotion and/ or performance appraisal; Held- the applicant suffered a work-related psychological injury which was caused by a multitude of work-related factors; the conduct relied on by the respondent was not the main contributing factor to the applicant’s injury; matter remitted to President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the applicant’s permanent impairment; respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant suffered a psychological injury in the course of his employment with the respondent with a deemed date of injury of 26 November 2018. 2. The applicant's employment with the respondent was the main contributing factor to the above injury. 3. The injury referred to in (1) above was not caused by the reasonable actions of the respondent with respect to promotion and/or performance appraisal. 4. The claim for permanent impairment compensation is remitted to the president for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the permanent impairment arising from the following: Date of injury: 26 November 2018 (deemed) Body system referred: psychological injury Method of assessment: whole person impairment 5. The documents to be referred to the medical assessor to assist with their determination are to include the following: a. this Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons; b. Application to Resolve a Dispute and attachments, and c. Reply and attachments. 6. The respondent is to pay the applicant's medical and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 15 August 2018, Cesar Gacayan (the applicant) commenced employment with Success Ventures Pty Ltd (the respondent) as assistant chief engineer at the Park Royal Hotel, Darling Harbour. In that role, he reported to the chief engineer, Mr Gary Roberts.
The applicant alleges that he suffered a psychological injury in the course of his employment with a deemed date of injury of 26 November 2018. He alleges he was subjected to bullying, harassment and intimidation by a number of employees and/or agents of the respondent. There is no medical issue that the applicant suffers a major depressive condition, however, the respondent alleges through its independent medical examiner (IME) Dr Vickery that the main contributing factor to that condition are personal stressors suffered by the applicant outside of the workplace.
By way of background, in May 2018, the applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Queensland for which he made a claim. Dr Vickery's view is that accident accounts for part of the personal stressors which caused the applicant's condition.
The applicant seeks payment of medical expenses pursuant 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gacayan v Success Ventures Pty 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: [2022] NSWPIC 109
Decision Date: 17 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gacayan v Success Ventures Pty Ltd, the applicant, Gacayan, sought compensation for a psychological injury sustained during the course of his employment. The dispute was heard and determined in the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission of New South Wales. Gacayan alleged that he suffered a psychological injury due to the respondent’s actions in relation to discipline, promotion, and performance appraisal. Success Ventures Pty Ltd, the respondent, contended that the applicant's psychological injury was not caused by their actions and, in any event, was not work-related.

The court was required to decide whether the applicant had indeed suffered a work-related psychological injury and, if so, whether the respondent's actions were the primary cause of that injury. The court examined the evidence presented, including medical reports and testimonies, to ascertain the nature and origin of the applicant’s psychological condition. The legal issues centred on establishing the causal link between the applicant’s psychological injury and the work environment, as well as determining the extent to which the respondent’s actions contributed to the injury.

The court found that the applicant had indeed suffered a work-related psychological injury, but that the respondent's actions were not the main contributing factor. The court identified a multitude of work-related factors that contributed to the applicant’s injury, thereby rejecting the respondent’s defence. Consequently, the court remitted the matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the applicant’s permanent impairment. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses.

Orders