Harrison v Bunnings Warehouse

Case [2025] NSWPIC 152


CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 
CITATION: Harrison v Bunnings Warehouse [2025] NSWPIC 152
APPLICANT: Kayley Jane Harrison
RESPONDENT: Bunnings Warehouse
MEMBER: Karen Garner
DATE OF DECISION: 15 April 2025

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); claim for permanent impairment lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66 of the 1987 Act; accepted elbow injury and accepted secondary psychological injury; whether applicant sustained a primary psychological injury in the nature of a disease pursuant to section 4(b)(i) and/or section 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act; what is the date of injury; whether the applicant’s claim is precluded by operation of section 254(1) and/or section 261(1) of the 1998 Act; Held – applicant sustained a primary psychological injury in the course of her employment with the respondent pursuant to section 4(b)(i) of the 1987 Act; the date of the applicant’s primary psychological injury is 15 October 2023; applicant’s claim is not precluded by operation of section 254(1) of the 1998 Act; applicant is not precluded from recovery of compensation by the operation of sections 261(1) of the 1998 Act; matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

The Commission determines:

1. The applicant sustained a primary psychological injury in the course of her employment with the respondent, in the nature of a disease, to which her employment was the main contributing factor, pursuant to s 4(b)(i) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).

2. The applicant did not sustain a primary psychological injury in the course of her employment with the respondent, in the nature of the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of any disease, to which her employment was the main contributing factor, pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act.

3. For the purpose of assessment and quantification of the applicant’s entitlement to payment of permanent impairment compensation pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act, the date of the applicant’s primary psychological injury is 15 October 2023.

4. The applicant’s claim is not precluded by operation of s 254(1) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act).

5. The applicant is not precluded from recovery of compensation by the operation of s 261(1) of the 1998 Act.

The Commission orders:

6.     The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment as follows:

Date of injury: 15 October 2023 (deemed).

Body parts: psychological. 

Method: whole person impairment.

7.     The materials to be referred to the Medical Assessor are to include:

(a)    Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents;

(b)    Reply and attached documents;

(c)    applicant’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents (ALAD) and attached documents dated 14 February 2025, and

(d)    respondent’s ALAD and attached documents dated 5 March 2025.

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

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

  1. Kayley Jane Harrison (the applicant)…

Continue reading Harrison v Bunnings Warehouse

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Harrison v Bunnings Warehouse [2025] NSWPIC 152
Case
[2025] NSWPIC 152
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harrison v Bunnings Warehouse involved a claim for workers' compensation by the applicant, who alleged she had sustained both a physical and psychological injury while employed by the respondent. The primary issue was whether the applicant had sustained a primary psychological injury in the nature of a disease pursuant to the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) and, if so, what the date of the injury was. The court was also required to determine whether the applicant's claim was barred by sections 254(1) and 261(1) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act).

The court found that the applicant had indeed sustained a primary psychological injury in the nature of a disease, pursuant to section 4(b)(i) of the 1987 Act, due to her diagnosed major depression. The court determined that the date of the primary psychological injury was 15 October 2023. Regarding the 1998 Act provisions, the court concluded that the applicant's claim was not precluded by section 254(1) and that she was not barred from recovery by section 261(1). Consequently, the matter was remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess the applicant's whole person impairment.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence provided by the applicant's treating psychiatrist, Dr Sriram Thazhathaveetil, who diagnosed major depression and opined that the applicant had lost permanent capacity to work in any role for which she was suitably qualified. The court found that the applicant's psychological injury was directly related to her work conditions and the physical injury she had sustained, which led to significant work stress and a sharp decline in her mental health. The court did not find the applicant's claim to be barred by the provisions of the 1998 Act, as the injury was deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of her employment.

In summary, the court found in favour of the applicant, determining that she had sustained a primary psychological injury and that her claim was not barred by the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act. The matter was remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess the applicant's whole person impairment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

On 18 May 2023, Dr Sriram Thazhathaveetil, the applicant’s treating psychiatrist, reported a diagnosis of major depression. Dr Thazhathaveetil expressed the opinion that, given the intensity of her depressive symptoms, the applicant was not suitable to work in a field that she was suitable qualified for by experience and training for the next six months. Dr Thazhathaveetil stated that the applicant:“… was working at Bunnings were [sic] she sustained a tennis elbow due to lifting weights. This occurred two years ago. Since then there has been a deterioration in her mental health.Mental health background:She had depression 7 years ago that remitted without any medication. Her mood was worsening due to work stress since COVID started. Since the injury, there has been a sharp decline in her mood.Mechanism of injury:·Tennis elbow limiting her functioning and causing significant pain·The situation also creates uncertainty about future which also contributes…” On 3 September 2023, Dr Murali Nagaraj, general practitioner, reported that the applicant continued to complain of severe, ongoing, disabling pain of her right elbow. Dr Nagaraj stated that the applicant also complained of anxiety, low mood, panic attacks, poor sleep, poor concentration and low energy levels and that she had cognitive and behavioural symptoms of depression and anxiety. On 18 May 2023, Dr Sriram Thazhathaveetil, the applicant’s treating psychiatrist, reported a diagnosis of major depression. Dr Thazhathaveetil recorded a history that the applicant “had depression 7 years ago that remitted without any medication. Her mood was worsening due to work stress since COVID started. Since the injury, there has been a sharp decline in her mood”. On 4 August 2024, Dr Thazhathaveetil reported a diagnosis of major depression and expressed the opinion that the applicant had lost permanent capacity to work in any role that she is suitably qualified for by education, experience and training. On 31 August 2024, Dr Thazhathaveetil reported a diagnosis of major depression and expressed the opinion that the applicant had lost permanent capacity to work in any role that she is suitably qualified for by education, experience and training. On 28 November 2023, Dr Thazhathaveetil reported a diagnosis of major depression. Dr Thazhathaveetil reported that a telephone call to the applicant from her manager “triggered memories of past alleged bullying”. Dr Thazhathaveetil expressed the opinion that the applicant had lost permanent capacity to work in any role for which she is suitably qualified for by education, experience and training. On 28 November 2024, Dr Thazhathaveetil reported a diagnosis of major depression and expressed the opinion that the applicant had lost permanent capacity to work in any role that she is suitably qualified for by education, experience and training. On 24 February 2024, Dr Thazhathaveetil reported a diagnosis of major depression and expressed the opinion that the applicant had lost permanent capacity to work in any role that she is suitably qualified for by education, experience and training.

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.