| 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
Kayley Jane Harrison (the applicant)…
Continue reading Harrison v Bunnings Warehouse
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Harrison v Bunnings Warehouse [2025] NSWPIC 152
- Case
- [2025] NSWPIC 152
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
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.