Heydeman v Ability Options - [2025] NSWPIC 385

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Heydeman v Ability Options [2025] NSWPIC 385
APPLICANT:	Roslyn Heydeman
RESPONDENT:	Ability Options
MEMBER:	Fiona Seaton
DATE OF DECISION:	7 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment; whether the applicant sustained a primary psychological injury in addition to an accepted secondary psychological injury pursuant to section 65A; Held – the applicant sustained a primary psychological injury; there is an entitlement to claim lump sum compensation; matter remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment resulting from the primary psychological injury.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained a primary psychological injury in the course of her employment as a result of the incident on 28 April 2021. The Commission orders: 2. This matter is 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: 28 April 2021 Body parts/systems: primary psychiatric and psychological disorders 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; (b) Reply and attached documents and respondent’s additional documents dated 30 May 2025; (c) respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 11 July 2025 and attached documents, and (d) applicant’s letter of instruction to Dr Kumar dated 12 July 2022. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant Ms Roslyn Heydeman was employed as a disability support worker by Ability Option, the respondent, from 2015 and on a permanent part time basis from October 2018 working at a group home.
On 28 April 2021 the applicant sustained a neck injury due to an assault by one of her disability support clients, returning to work on 19 May 2021 on restricted hours which gradually increased. She ceased work on 24 September 2021 as a result of the worsening of her psychological condition.
Liability is accepted for the applicant’s cervical spine injury and a secondary psychological condition and medical expenses continue to be paid.
A claim for lump sum compensation was made by the applicant on 20 September 2023 for 28% whole person impairment as a result of psychological injury.
The notice issued on 9 February 2024 under s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 disputes the applicant is entitled to lump sum compensation because she has sustained a secondary psychological condition. A review notice issued on 14 April 2025 maintains that decision.
In the Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) lodged in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 8 May 2025 the applicant claims lump sum compensation for 28% whole person impairment for psychiatric and psychological disorders.
The dispute was listed for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing on 11 July 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.

Continue reading Heydeman v Ability Options

Details

AGLC: Heydeman v Ability Options [2025] NSWPIC 385
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 385
Decision Date: 7 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Heydeman v Ability Options was brought before the Court of Appeal, involving a dispute over workers' compensation for permanent impairment. The applicant, Heydeman, sought a lump sum compensation for the injuries sustained. The primary issue before the Court was whether Heydeman had sustained a primary psychological injury, separate from an already accepted secondary psychological injury, under section 65A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. This would determine Heydeman's eligibility for additional compensation.

The legal issues central to the case were the interpretation and application of section 65A of the Workers Compensation Act, which governs the compensation for psychological injuries. The Court had to examine the evidence and determine whether Heydeman's psychological injury was indeed primary, independent of any physical injury, and whether this condition met the criteria for compensation. The Court also needed to consider the procedural steps required to assess and compensate for this primary psychological injury.

The Court of Appeal found that Heydeman had indeed sustained a primary psychological injury. It held that there was an entitlement to claim lump sum compensation for this injury, as it was separate from the secondary psychological injury previously acknowledged. The Court concluded that the matter should be remitted to the President for further referral to a Medical Assessor to evaluate the whole person impairment resulting from the primary psychological injury. This decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable statutory provisions.

Orders