La Macchia v MCS Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 629

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	La Macchia v MCS Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 629
APPLICANT:	Nicoletta La Macchia
RESPONDENT:	MCS Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Adam Halstead
DATE OF DECISION:	11 November 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly compensation payments pursuant to section 37; journey claim; applicant injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving from home to place of work; requirement for applicant to use own motor vehicle as part of employment; microsleep claimed to have occurred immediately prior to accident; whether a real and substantial connection between employment and the accident; subsection 10(3A); Held – not a compensable journey; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 26 December 2020 during a journey that is not compensable for the purposes of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. Award for the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Ms Nicoletta La Macchia, was employed by the respondent, MCS Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd, as a disability support worker on a casual basis. In that role, the applicant provided support and assistance to clients with disabilities so they may continue living independently in their own homes.
Work was allocated to the applicant through an electronic rostering system. She travelled directly from her home to places of work as rostered, that is, the homes of disabled clients. The applicant used her own motor vehicle to travel to work and was also required to transport her clients, using her motor vehicle, from their homes to medical appointments and other lifestyle activities as needed.
The applicant was rostered to attend to a client’s home in Casino on 26 December 2020 to provide support services on an overnight basis. That work allocation involved the applicant starting at 4.00pm and staying at the client’s home overnight. She was to resume work the next morning at 6.00am to further assist the client and then finish at 10.00am on
27 December 2020.
About 3.00pm on 26 December 2020, the applicant left home at Alstonville and drove her motor vehicle towards Casino, initially through Lismore, and then west along the Bruxner Highway. At a point approximately 6km to the east of Casino, sometime around 3.45pm, the applicant’s motor vehicle left the roadway, became airborne and then collided heavily with the ground when she sustained injuries to her lumbar spine. She submitted a claim for payment of weekly workers compensation in relation to those injuries.
The respondent disputed the applicant’s claim on the basis her injuries arose in circumstances where there was not a real and substantial connection between the motor vehicle accident and her employment. The applicant filed an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) at the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 13 June 2024.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The matter was before the Commission for arbitration on 4 September 2024 in a virtual hearing room. Ms Compton of counsel, instructed by Mr Harrison…

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 La Macchia v MCS Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: La Macchia v MCS Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 629
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 629
Decision Date: 11 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of La Macchia v MCS Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd involved a claim for weekly compensation payments by the applicant, who alleged that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving from his home to his place of work. The applicant argued that the journey was part of his employment, necessitating the use of his own motor vehicle. The respondent, MCS Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd, denied the compensability of the accident, contending that it was unrelated to the applicant's employment. The dispute was brought before the court to determine the applicability of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, specifically section 37, which pertains to claims for compensation.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the accident had a real and substantial connection to the applicant's employment. This involved examining the circumstances surrounding the accident, particularly whether the applicant's employment required him to use his own motor vehicle, and if so, whether the journey was compensable under subsection 10(3A). The court had to consider whether the microsleep claimed to have occurred immediately prior to the accident was an inherent risk of the employment, or if it constituted a separate, personal risk.

The court determined that the accident did not have a real and substantial connection to the applicant's employment, as it found that the journey was not inherently related to his duties. The court held that the microsleep was a personal risk rather than a risk inherent in the employment. Consequently, the claim for compensation was dismissed, and the award was made in favour of the respondent. The court's decision was grounded in the statutory framework provided by the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the specific provisions regarding journey claims.

The final orders of the court included a dismissal of the applicant's claim for weekly compensation payments and a direction for the applicant to bear the costs of the proceedings. This ruling underscored the importance of establishing a direct link between the employment and the injury for a claim to be compensable under the Act.

Orders