Guy v Western Precast Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 461

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Guy v Western Precast Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 461
APPLICANT:	Jordan Guy
RESPONDENT:	Western Precast Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Michael Wright
DATE OF DECISION:	22 August 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; undisputed claim for primary psychological injury as a result of bullying and harassment while on restricted duties following physical injury; respondent contended that finding for psychological injury should also be made; Held – applicant did not sustain secondary psychological injury; matter referred for medical assessment for primary psychological injury.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant has not suffered a secondary psychological injury within the meaning of s 65A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. Matter remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for assessment as follows: Date of injury: 13 August 2019 - personal injury. Body systems/parts: psychological/psychiatric disorder. Method of Assessment: whole person impairment. 3. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, and (b) Reply and attached documents.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

In an Application to Resolve a Dispute, Jordan Guy (the applicant), claimed lump sum compensation for primary psychology injury in respect of injury on 13 August 2019 in the course of his employment with Western Precast Pty Ltd (the respondent).

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 hearing of this matter on 31 July 2024, the applicant was represented by Mr J McEnaney of counsel, instructed by Ms Huang, solicitor, and the respondent by Mr B Jones, of counsel, instructed by Ms Tippett, 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.
An Application to Admit Late Documents dated 29 July 2024, and attached documents, was not admitted.

Oral evidence

There was no oral evidence.

Dr Kumagaya

Dr Kumagaya, consultant psychiatrist, provided reports to the applicant’s solicitors dated
24 August 2023.
In his substantive report dated 24 August 2023, Dr Kumagaya recorded a history of injury to the applicant’s right ankle on 21 December 2018 and of subsequent treatment, and return to work on restricted duties. He noted that the applicant said that he was warned regarding the chance of re-injury should such medical restrictions not be observed.
Dr Kumagaya noted that upon commencement of return to work,…

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 Guy v Western Precast Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Guy v Western Precast Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 461
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 461
Decision Date: 22 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Guy brought a claim against Western Precast Pty Ltd in relation to an injury sustained during his employment. The dispute centred on the nature and extent of the psychological injury he claimed to have suffered following a physical injury that resulted in him being on restricted duties. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court, which had to determine the validity and extent of the psychological injury claims. The respondent argued that the applicant not only suffered a primary psychological injury due to bullying and harassment but also a secondary psychological injury.

The court was required to decide whether the applicant's psychological injury was solely a result of the bullying and harassment while on restricted duties or if it also included a secondary psychological injury. The primary issue was whether the applicant's psychological condition was a direct consequence of the workplace bullying and harassment or if it could be attributed to other factors. Another consideration was whether the psychological injury was a result of the physical injury or the subsequent restricted duties and workplace environment.

The court found that the applicant had indeed suffered a primary psychological injury as a result of the bullying and harassment while on restricted duties. However, it dismissed the contention that the applicant also sustained a secondary psychological injury. The court held that the primary psychological injury was directly linked to the workplace bullying and harassment, but there was no evidence to support the existence of a secondary psychological injury. The matter was referred for a medical assessment to determine the nature and extent of the primary psychological injury. The court's decision thus confirmed the applicant's entitlement to compensation for the primary psychological injury, while rejecting the claim for a secondary psychological injury.

Orders