Gray v Busways Gosford EMP Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 65 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Gray v Busways Gosford EMP Pty Limited [2009] NSWWCCPD 124
APPELLANT: Kelly Gray
RESPONDENT: Busways Gosford EMP Pty Limited
INSURER: QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited
FILE NUMBER: A1-1979/09
ARBITRATOR: Mr J McDermott
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 15 June 2009
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 6 October 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Psychological injury; treatment of evidence and issues; section 11A Workers Compensation Act 1987; section 74 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; failure by insurer to properly identify issues in dispute
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: PK Simpson & Co
Respondent: Lucas & Staggs Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

Paragraphs one and two of the Arbitrator’s determination of 15 June 2009 are revoked and the following orders made:

“1.     Award for the applicant worker under section 36 in the sum of $341.68 per week from 28 August 2007 until 11 November 2007.

2.       The respondent employer is to pay the applicant worker’s section 60 expenses.

3.       The respondent employer is to pay the applicant worker’s costs as agreed or assessed.”

The respondent employer is to pay the appellant worker’s costs of the appeal, which are assessed at $2,200 plus GST.

BACKGROUND

  1. The worker, Kelly Gray, started work as a casual bus cleaner for the respondent, Busways Gosford EMP Pty Limited (‘Busways’), at its Kincumber depot in September 2006.  Her supervisor was Scott Dyble.  She had no problems at work until May 2007 when she noticed a change in attitude of two co-workers, Bill Morrison and Lorraine Harris, also casual cleaners.

  1. Ms Gray’s relationship with her co-workers deteriorated between May and August 2007 resulting in her ceasing work on 28 August 2007. 

  1. In an Application to Resolve a Dispute (‘the Application’) registered in the Commission on 16 March 2009, Ms Gray sought weekly compensation from 28 August 2007 to date and continuing.  Though her Application alleged four separate injuries, her claim essentially came down to two allegations.  First, that she suffered an injury to her back, neck and right arm as a result of performing heavy repetitive duties with Busways as a cleaner between September 2006 and August 2007.  Second, that she received a psychiatric injury in the form of depression, anxiety and panic attacks as a result of “work overload, inappropriate behaviour, abuse, humiliation, insults, being picked on, victimised, harassed, threatened, verbally abused, called names, and being belittled in the presence of others on 18 May 2007 and/or between January and November 2007[sic]”.

  1. The section 74 notice served by Busways’ insurer, QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited (‘QBE’), on 11 October 2007 identified only three issues in dispute, namely:

(a)whether Ms Gray had received an injury;

(b)if she had received an injury, whether her employment was a substantial contributing factor to that injury, and

(c)whether any psychological injury received by her was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gray v Busways Gosford EMP 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
[2009] NSWWCCPD 124
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gray v Busways Gosford EMP Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr. Gray, sought compensation for psychological injury sustained during his employment. The dispute was heard and determined by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Mr. Gray alleged that he suffered psychological injury due to the actions of his employer, Busways Gosford EMP Pty Ltd, and that the employer’s insurer had failed to properly identify the issues in dispute. The primary legal issues for the tribunal to address were whether Mr. Gray's psychological injury was work-related and whether the insurer had correctly managed the dispute.

The tribunal examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the statutory provisions governing workers' compensation, specifically sections 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and section 74 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The tribunal needed to determine if the insurer had adequately identified and handled the issues in dispute and if the applicant's psychological injury was a result of his employment. The tribunal found that the insurer had not properly identified the issues in dispute and that Mr. Gray's psychological injury was indeed work-related.

Consequently, the tribunal revoked the earlier determination and issued new orders. The tribunal awarded Mr. Gray compensation for his psychological injury, ordered the employer to pay his section 60 expenses, and directed the employer to cover his costs as agreed or assessed. This decision underscores the importance of insurers accurately identifying and addressing issues in workers' compensation claims and the tribunal's role in ensuring that workers receive appropriate compensation for work-related injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

Paragraphs one and two of the Arbitrator’s determination of 15 June 2009 are revoked and the following orders made:

“1. Award for the applicant worker under section 36 in the sum of $341.68 per week from 28 August 2007 until 11 November 2007.

2. The respondent employer is to pay the applicant worker’s section 60 expenses.

3. The respondent employer is to pay the applicant worker’s costs as agreed or assessed.”

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.