Lobel v Secretary, Department of Customer Service - [2025] NSWPIC 546

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Lobel v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2025] NSWPIC 546
APPLICANT:	Ursula Lobel
RESPONDENT:	Secretary, Department of Customer Service
MEMBER:	Anne Gracie
DATE OF DECISION:	14 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for psychological injury; claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66; consideration of applicant’s statements, medical reports and other treatment records, claim correspondence, and other factual material; consideration of injury and causation; consideration of material contributing factor; Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates, Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch, AV v AW, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes (NSW) Pty Limited, Briginshaw v Briginshaw, Helton v Allen, Austin v Director General of Education, and Duncan v Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW and Anor; Held – the applicant’s employment with the respondent has been the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation and/or deterioration of the applicant’s psychological condition (chronic post-traumatic stress disorder) pursuant to section 4(b)(ii); the matter is referred to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for determination of whole person impairment.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) determines: 1. The applicant’s employment with the respondent has been the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation and/or deterioration of the applicant’s psychological condition complex post-traumatic stress disorder pursuant to s 4 (b) (ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 with a deemed date of injury, 19 December 2018. 2. The claim for the psychological injury is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the degree of permanent impairment arising from the following: · date of injury: 19 December 2018 (deemed); · body systems referred: psychological injury, and · method of assessment: whole person impairment (WPI). 3. The documents to be referred to the Medical Assessor to assist with their determination are to include the following: (a) this Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons; (b) Application to Resolve a Dispute and annexures; (c) Reply and annexures; (d) applicant’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents and annexures filed on 1 October 2025, and (e) respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents and annexures filed on 1 October 2025. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ursula Lobel, the applicant, is 67 years old. She was employed by the Department of Customer Service, the respondent, as a senior auditor having commenced employment with the respondent in its various governmental iterations since 1996.
On 19 December 2018, the applicant sustained injury at work whilst working for the respondent when she was sliding her chair on a plastic mat and she fell heavily, striking her head and neck on the edge of a filing cabinet. In attempting to break her fall the applicant also injured her right hand.
The applicant lodged a claim for workers compensation which was accepted by the workers compensation insurance company Allianz Australia Insurance Limited in respect of…

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 Lobel v Secretary, Department of Customer Service

Details

AGLC: Lobel v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2025] NSWPIC 546
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 546
Decision Date: 14 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lobel v Secretary, Department of Customer Service, the applicant sought compensation for psychological injuries sustained during employment with the respondent. The applicant claimed compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and requested a lump sum payment. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Court, which was tasked with determining whether the applicant's employment had significantly contributed to the aggravation of their psychological condition, and if so, to what extent.

The court needed to address several legal issues, including the interpretation of section 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, which pertains to the main contributing factor in the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, or deterioration of the applicant's condition. The court also had to consider various pieces of evidence, such as the applicant's statements, medical reports, and other treatment records, alongside correspondence and factual material presented by both parties. The court applied precedents such as Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates, Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch, AV v AW, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes (NSW) Pty Limited, Briginshaw v Briginshaw, Helton v Allen, Austin v Director General of Education, and Duncan v Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW and Anor to assess the credibility and weight of the evidence.

After thorough examination of the evidence, the court found that the applicant's employment with the respondent had indeed been the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, and/or deterioration of the applicant's psychological condition. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant and referred the matter to the President for further action. Specifically, the matter was referred to a Medical Assessor to determine the whole person impairment. The court did not provide final orders in the decision but indicated that the next step would involve the assessment of the applicant's impairment level.

Orders