Grey v Endeavour Energy - [2024] NSWPIC 612

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Grey v Endeavour Energy [2024] NSWPIC 612
APPLICANT:	John Grey
RESPONDENT:	Endeavour Energy
MEMBER:	Michael Wright
DATE OF DECISION:	31 October 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Industrial deafness; claim for hearing aids and table microphone; multiple causes and material contribution; Murphy v Allity Managements Services Pty Ltd considered; Held – award in favour of the applicant.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Respondent to pay, pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, for the cost of the supply and fitting of hearing aids and a table microphone, as recommended by Dr Fagan in his report dated 22 August 2023. Hearing aid fees to be in accordance with the Workers Compensation (Hearing Aid Fees) Order 2024.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr John Grey (the applicant) was employed by Endeavour Energy (the respondent) from 1971 to 5 January 2007. Mr Grey worked as an electrician for the respondent for the entire period of his employment. That employment was noisy. The applicant has not been employed since his employment with the respondent ceased.
The applicant sustained hearing loss as a result of his employment with the respondent, although, as noted below, a correction for presbycusis applied.
The applicant claims for the cost of the supply and fitting of hearing aids and the provision of a table microphone.
By way of dispute notices, the respondent relevantly disputed the claimed expenses on the basis that such expenses were the result of presbycusis, not from injury. A dispute as to notice of claim and compensation was not pressed at the hearing of this matter.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
At the conciliation/arbitration hearing of this matter on 30 October 2024, the applicant was represented by Mr R Stanton, of counsel, instructed by Ms Faura, solicitor, and the respondent by Mr J Gaitanis, of counsel, instructed by Ms Chaplin, solicitor.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:
(a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, and
(b) Reply and attached documents.

Oral evidence

There was no oral evidence.

Applicant’s statements

The applicant provided statements dated 16 March 2024 and 9 May 2024.
It is not necessary to summarise in detail these statements, given the issue in dispute. In the former statement the applicant described his noisy employment with the respondent, his difficulties with hearing, and the benefit he felt from a trial of hearing aids. The latter statement dealt with notice issues, which was…

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 Grey v Endeavour Energy

Details

AGLC: Grey v Endeavour Energy [2024] NSWPIC 612
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 612
Decision Date: 31 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Grey, sought compensation from the respondent, Endeavour Energy, for industrial deafness, requesting costs for hearing aids and a table microphone. The dispute was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The primary legal issues centred on whether Grey's deafness was attributable to his employment with Endeavour Energy, and if so, whether the requested compensation was justified. The court had to determine if Grey's deafness resulted from exposure to high noise levels in his workplace, and if this exposure materially contributed to his condition. The decision referenced Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd, which emphasised the need for a material contribution from work-related factors to the injury or disease.

The QCAT examined the evidence regarding Grey's exposure to noise at work and the extent to which it contributed to his deafness. It was acknowledged that multiple factors could have contributed to his hearing loss, but the critical question was whether the work-related exposure was a significant contributing factor. The decision referenced Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd, which set a precedent that a causal link must be established between the work environment and the injury or disease. The QCAT found that Grey had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his work with Endeavour Energy was a material contributing factor to his deafness. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence supported a causal connection and that the requested compensation was warranted.

The QCAT determined in favour of Grey, awarding compensation for the costs of hearing aids and a table microphone. The decision emphasised that Grey's work environment was a material contributing factor to his industrial deafness. The QCAT found that the requested compensation was reasonable and necessary to mitigate the impact of his hearing loss. The decision highlighted the importance of establishing a clear causal link between the workplace and the injury, as per the principles outlined in Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd. The final orders included a compensation award to cover the costs of the specified items.

Orders