Hazelton v Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution - [2025] NSWPIC 200

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Hazelton v Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution [2025] NSWPIC 200
APPLICANT:	Susan Dorothy Hazelton
RESPONDENT:	Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	13 May 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66 in respect of a primary psychological injury; injury disputed; delay in giving notice of injury and making a claim of approximately 12-months; where workplace described favourably in exit interview; concurrent personal stressors and prior history of psychological symptoms and treatment; Held – worker sustained an injury in the nature of an aggravation, exacerbation or deterioration of her pre-existing psychological condition; real events in the workplace perceived as hostile causing a deterioration in the applicant’s condition; treating evidence supportive of employment being the main contributing factor to the injury; delay adequately explained by the seriousness of the applicant’s condition in the period following the cessation of work; medical dispute remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained a psychological injury in the course of employment with the respondent, in the nature of an aggravation, exacerbation or deterioration of a disease, to which employment was the main contributing factor, pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment as follows: Date of injury: 4 April 2022 (deemed) Body part: Primary psychological injury Method: Whole Person Impairment. 3. The materials to be referred to the Medical Assessor are to include the Application to Resolve a Dispute and all attachments, the Reply and all attachments and this Certificate of Determination and accompanying Statement of Reasons. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ms Susan Hazelton (the applicant) was employed by Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution Pty Ltd (the respondent) as an Area Care Assessment Consultant between 9 August 2021 and 4 April 2022. In or around July 2023, the applicant made a claim that she sustained a psychological injury in the course of her employment with the respondent due to incidents at work and behaviour by her co-workers and superiors.
Liability for the claim was initially disputed in a notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 1 February 2024
The applicant made a claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) on 2 May 2024. That claim was disputed by the respondent’s insurer in a further notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the 1998 Act on 27 August 2024.The decision to dispute liability was maintained following internal review on 25 September 2024.
The applicant commenced the current proceedings by lodgement of an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 9 January 2025.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hazelton v Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution 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 200
Decision Date: 13 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hazelton commenced proceedings against the Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution in the Workers Compensation Appeals Commission of New South Wales, seeking compensation for a primary psychological injury sustained during her employment. The primary dispute was whether Hazelton's psychological condition constituted a compensable injury and if the delay in reporting the injury was justified. The institution contested both the existence of the injury and the legitimacy of the delay in reporting.

The court had to determine whether Hazelton's psychological condition was an injury in the nature of an aggravation, exacerbation, or deterioration of a pre-existing condition, and whether the delay in reporting the injury was justified. The institution argued that Hazelton's psychological condition was not a compensable injury, and that the delay in reporting the injury was unreasonable. The court needed to evaluate the evidence presented regarding Hazelton's psychological condition, the workplace events, and the delay in reporting the injury.

The Workers Compensation Appeals Commission found that Hazelton did sustain a compensable injury in the nature of an aggravation, exacerbation, or deterioration of her pre-existing psychological condition. The court accepted that the workplace was perceived as hostile, contributing to the deterioration of her condition. The delay in reporting the injury was deemed justified due to the seriousness of Hazelton's condition following the cessation of work. The medical dispute was remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to provide further expert opinion.

The Workers Compensation Appeals Commission ordered that the dispute regarding the medical evidence be referred to a Medical Assessor for further evaluation. The determination of the compensable injury and the justified delay in reporting will be subject to the findings of the Medical Assessor.

Orders