Harris v United Resource Management

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read
CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 
CITATION: Harris v United Resource Management [2025] NSWPIC 207
APPLICANT: Mark Harris
RESPONDENT: URM Environmental Services Pty Limited
MEMBER: John Turner
DATE OF DECISION: 14 May 2025

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; sections 32A, 33, 38, and clause 9 of Schedule 3 considered; whether incapacity due to accepted injury; dispute as to partial or total incapacity; dispute as to entitlement to compensation under section 38; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Wollongong Nursing Home Pty Ltd v Dewar, Roberts v University of Sydney, Holmes v Central Coast Council, and Houghton v Jack & Jill Pre-School Association (Lithgow) Incorporated cited; Held – the applicant has no current work capacity as a result of incapacity arising from the accepted work injury; the applicant is entitled to compensation pursuant to section 38; the respondent to pay the applicant pursuant to section 38.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

The Commission determines:

1.     By consent the name of the respondent is amended to “URM Environmental Services Pty Limited”.

2.     That the applicant has no current work capacity as a result of incapacity arising from the accepted work injury.

3.     That the applicant is “likely to continue indefinitely to have no current work capacity”.

4. That the applicant is entitled to compensation pursuant to s 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act).

5. The respondent to pay the applicant pursuant to s 38 of the 1987 Act:

(a)    $1,456 from 27 August 2024 to 30 September 2024;

(b)    $1,488 from 1 October 2024 to 31 March 2025, and

(c)    $1,496 from 1 April 2025 to date and continuing subject to indexation.

A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

  1. Mr Mark Harris (applicant) has brought proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) in which he alleges that he sustained injury to his right knee, right hip and right leg on 26 August 2020 when he tripped on tree roots protruding from under a footpath whilst pulling a rubbish bin in the course of his employment with URM Environmental Services Pty Limited (respondent).

  2. The applicant seeks weekly benefits compensation from 27 August 2024 to date and continuing pursuant to s 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act).

  3. The parties have agreed the applicant’s “pre-injury average weekly earnings” (PIAWE) as at 26 August 2020 at $1,536.80.

  4. It appears that the injury in fact occurred either on 17 or 18 August 2020 rather than 26 August 2020 however injury is not disputed. It is the applicant’s evidence that the injury was sustained on 17 August 2020 which is consistent with the history taken by Dr Bodel as well as the clinical record of Dr Allison Charnock of 19 August 2020.

  5. The applicant commenced employment with the respondent on or around 21 December 2018 as a driver of a recycling truck. The applicant’s work duties involved the driving and operation of a recycling truck as well as…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Harris v United Resource Management 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
[2025] NSWPIC 207
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Harris v United Resource Management, the applicant sought a determination regarding their entitlement to workers' compensation. The applicant alleged that they had suffered a work-related injury which had resulted in a total incapacity to work. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had a total incapacity due to the injury and, if so, whether they were entitled to compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The matter was heard in the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the applicant had a total incapacity to work as a result of the accepted work injury, and if so, whether the applicant was entitled to compensation under section 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court had to consider the evidence presented and the relevant provisions of the Act to make a determination.

The court found that the applicant had no current work capacity as a result of incapacity arising from the accepted work injury. The court considered the evidence and concluded that the applicant's incapacity was due to the accepted work injury. The court also found that the applicant was entitled to compensation under section 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court made reference to previous cases such as Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Wollongong Nursing Home Pty Ltd v Dewar, Roberts v University of Sydney, Holmes v Central Coast Council, and Houghton v Jack & Jill Pre-School Association (Lithgow) Incorporated in reaching its decision.

The court ordered that the respondent, United Resource Management, was to pay the applicant compensation pursuant to section 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court made no further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.