Grace v Aruma Services - [2022] NSWPIC 585

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
Citation:	Grace v Aruma Services [2022] NSWPIC 585
APPLICANT:	Kim Grace
RESPONDENT:	Aruma Services
Member:	Gaius Whiffin
DATE OF DECISION:	21 October 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for psychological injury; claims for weekly compensation and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); consideration of applicant’s statements, medical reports and other treatment records, claim correspondence, and factual material; consideration of whether the respondent can establish (pursuant to section 11A of the 1987 Act) that the applicant's psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by it with respect to the provision of employment benefits; Pirie v Franklins Limited, Department of Education and Training v Sinclair, Manly Pacific International Hotel Pty Limited v Doyle, Insurance Australia Group Services Pty Limited v Outram, Ponnan v George Weston Foods Limited, Temelkov v Kemblawarra Portugese Sports and Social Club Limited, Smith v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW, State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Chemler, Attorney General’s Department v K, Hamad v Q Catering Limited and Baker v Southern Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust considered; consideration of whether (and if so, to what extent) the applicant has been incapacitated for work as a result of her psychological injury since 3 November 2021; consideration of whether the applicant is entitled to reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60 of the 1987 Act; Held – the respondent has failed to establish its defence under section 11A of the 1987 Act; applicant had no current work capacity until 1 February 2022; applicant’s current weekly earnings since 1 February 2022 are $558; award for the applicant pursuant to sections 36(1), then 37(2), and then 37(3) of the 1987 Act; award that the respondent pay the applicant’s treatment expenses pursuant to section 60 of the 1987 Act.
determinations made:	1. As a result of the nature and conditions of the applicant's employment with the respondent, she has sustained a 'disease injury' pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), being the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a pre-existing psychiatric condition, in the course of her employment. Her employment with the respondent is the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the disease. 2. Pursuant to s 16(1)(a)(i) of the 1987 Act, the applicant’s psychological injury will be deemed to have happened on 3 November 2021. 3. The respondent has failed to establish (pursuant to s 11A of the 1987 Act) that the applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by it with respect to the provision of employment benefits. 4. The applicant has been incapacitated for work as a result of the psychological injury since 3 November 2021. 5. The applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) is $1,768.90. 6. Between 3 November 2021 and 31 January…

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 Grace v Aruma Services 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 585
Decision Date: 21 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grace v Aruma Services involved a dispute between Grace, the applicant, and Aruma Services, the respondent. The central issue was whether the applicant was entitled to weekly compensation and treatment expenses following a claim for psychological injury. This claim was brought under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act). The dispute required the court to consider a range of evidence, including the applicant’s statements, medical reports, treatment records, correspondence related to the claim, and other relevant factual material.

The court had to decide whether the respondent could establish, as per section 11A of the 1987 Act, that the applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable actions taken by the respondent in relation to employment benefits. This required a thorough examination of the respondent’s actions and their impact on the applicant’s psychological health. The court also had to determine the extent of the applicant’s incapacity for work due to the psychological injury and assess her weekly earnings post-injury.

In reaching its decision, the court considered several precedent cases, including Pirie v Franklins Limited and Department of Education and Training v Sinclair, among others. The court found that the respondent had not successfully demonstrated that the applicant’s psychological injury was predominantly caused by reasonable actions taken in relation to employment benefits. Consequently, the court ruled that the applicant had no current work capacity until 1 February 2022. Since then, the applicant’s weekly earnings have been assessed at $558. The court awarded the applicant compensation under sections 36(1), 37(2), and 37(3) of the 1987 Act and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant’s treatment expenses under section 60 of the Act.

Orders