| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | |||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | |||
| CITATION: | AP v NSW Police Force [2013] NSWWCCPD 11 | ||
| APPELLANT: | AP | ||
| RESPONDENT: | NSW Police Force | ||
| INSURER: | Employers Mutual Ltd | ||
| FILE NUMBER: | A1-4020/12 | ||
| ARBITRATOR: | Ms D Moore | ||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 27 September 2012 | ||
| DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: | 19 February 2013 | ||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 6 March 2013 | ||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Psychological injury; causation; disease; aggravation of disease; application of principles in State Transit Authority (NSW) v Chemler [2007] NSWCA 249; 5 DDCR 286; Zinc Corporation Ltd v Scarce (1995) 12 NSWCCR 566 and Stewart v NSW Police Service (1998) 17 NSWCCR 202 distinguished | ||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Deputy President Bill Roche | ||
| HEARING: | Oral | ||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Mr P Stockley, instructed by Carroll & O’Dea | |
| Respondent: | Ms E Wood, instructed by Bartier Perry | ||
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | The determination of 27 September 2012 is revoked and the following orders made: 1. The applicant worker suffered a disease injury under s 4(b)(i) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in that she contracted a disease in the course of her employment to which her employment was a contributing factor. 2. The applicant’s employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. 3. The deemed date of injury for the s 4(b)(i) injury is 22 September 2011. 4. The applicant suffered an aggravation injury under s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 to which her employment was a substantial contributing factor. 5. The deemed date of injury for the s 4(b)(ii) injury is 4 November 2011. 6. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the arbitration on 24 August 2012. 7. The arbitration on 24 August 2012 is certified complex for the purposes of Schedule 6, Table 4, Item 4, of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2010 and there is a 30 per cent increase applied to the costs applicable to each party. 8. The matter is remitted to a different Arbitrator for determination of the applicant’s entitlement to weekly and other compensation, and any other outstanding issues. The respondent employer is to pay the appellant worker’s costs of the appeal, assessed at $2,530 plus GST. | ||
INTRODUCTION
The appellant worker, a Senior Constable with the NSW Police Force, (the appellant), claimed compensation for a psychological injury alleged to have been caused by difficulties coping with work, the suicide death of a fellow police officer (Ms AQ), lack of support from fellow workers, and harassment by supervisors.
Though provisional liability was accepted, and compensation paid until 26 April 2012, the NSW Police Force’s insurer denied liability in a s 74 notice, dated 12 April 2012, on the grounds that:
(a) the appellant had not suffered a psychological injury because the death of a co-worker was not compensable within the definition of injury in s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act);
(b) if the appellant suffered a psychological injury, employment was not a substantial contributing factor to that injury;
(c) no bullying or harassment occurred,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Inman v NSW Police Force 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] NSWWCCPD 11
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The NCAT applied principles from previous cases such as State Transit Authority (NSW) v Chemler, Zinc Corporation Ltd v Scarce, and Stewart v NSW Police Service to assess the causation and aggravation of Inman's psychological injury. The tribunal found that Inman's employment with the NSW Police Force was indeed a contributing factor to her psychological injury and that her employment substantially contributed to the aggravation of her condition. The deemed date of injury for the primary disease was set at 22 September 2011, and for the aggravation, it was set at 4 November 2011.
The NCAT revoked the previous determination and made several orders, including that Inman suffered a disease injury and an aggravation injury, both of which her employment was a substantial contributing factor to. The deemed dates of injury were also specified. Furthermore, the NCAT ruled that the respondent was to pay Inman's costs of the arbitration and the appeal, and the matter was remitted to a different arbitrator for further determination of compensation and other issues. The tribunal also certified the arbitration as complex, resulting in a 30 per cent increase in the applicable costs for each party.
Orders
Orders of the court
The determination of 27 September 2012 is revoked and the following orders made:
1. The applicant worker suffered a disease injury under s 4(b)(i) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in that she contracted a disease in the course of her employment to which her employment was a contributing factor.
2. The applicant’s employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury.
3. The deemed date of injury for the s 4(b)(i) injury is 22 September 2011.
4. The applicant suffered an aggravation injury under s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 to which her employment was a substantial contributing factor.
5. The deemed date of injury for the s 4(b)(ii) injury is 4 November 2011.
6. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the arbitration on 24 August 2012.
7. The arbitration on 24 August 2012 is certified complex for the purposes of Schedule 6, Table 4, Item 4, of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2010 and there is a 30 per cent increase applied to the costs applicable to each party.
8. The matter is remitted to a different Arbitrator for determination of the applicant’s entitlement to weekly and other compensation, and any other outstanding issues.
The respondent employer is to pay the appellant worker’s costs of the appeal, assessed at $2,530 plus GST.
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.