Martin v Healthshare NSW - [2024] NSWPIC 353

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Martin v Healthshare NSW [2024] NSWPIC 353
APPLICANT:	Geoffrey Martin
RESPONDENT:	Healthshare NSW
MEMBER:	2 July 2024
DATE OF DECISION:	Rachel Homan
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly compensation in respect of a psychological injury; whether the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by the respondent with respect to discipline and/or dismissal under section 11A(1); reasonableness of action; delay in disciplinary process; failure to put critical information to the applicant for comment; whether a pattern of behaviour was unreasonably taken into account; Held – the respondent failed to discharge its onus under section 11A(1); the applicant totally incapacitated as a result of injury; award in favour of the applicant for weekly compensation.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The respondent has not discharged its onus of establishing on the balance of probabilities that the applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of the respondent with respect to discipline or dismissal of workers pursuant to s 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. The applicant has had no current work capacity as a result of the injury from 26 September 2023 to date. 3. The respondent to pay the applicant weekly compensation from 26 September 2023 to date and continuing pursuant to ss 36(1) and 37(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, based on the agreed pre-injury average weekly earnings rate of $2,094.86, as periodically indexed in accordance with s 82A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 4. The respondent to have credit for any payments already made in the relevant period in accordance with the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Geoffrey Martin (the applicant) was employed as a duty manager by Healthshare NSW (the respondent).
The applicant claims to have suffered a psychological injury due to accusations being made against him by a co-worker and unreasonable action taken by the respondent in response to those accusations.
The claim for compensation was disputed by the respondent’s insurer in a notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 29 November 2023. The insurer determined that the applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by the respondent with respect to discipline and/or dismissal for the purposes of s 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
The present proceedings were commenced by an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) lodged in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) on 21 February 2024. The applicant seeks weekly compensation from 26 September 2023 to date and continuing.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The parties appeared for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing via Microsoft Teams on 6 May 2024. The applicant was represented by Mr Greg Horan of counsel instructed by Mr Gerard…

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 Martin v Healthshare NSW 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: [2024] NSWPIC 353
Decision Date: 2 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Martin v Healthshare NSW, the applicant, Martin, sought weekly compensation for a psychological injury sustained during his employment with the respondent, Healthshare NSW. The dispute centred on whether the psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by actions taken by the respondent with respect to discipline or dismissal under section 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The case came before the court which had to determine if the respondent had discharged the onus of proving that the injury was caused by such actions.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the respondent's actions were reasonable, if the delay in the disciplinary process and failure to provide critical information to the applicant constituted unreasonable behaviour, and if a pattern of behaviour was unreasonably taken into account. The court had to assess the reasonableness of the respondent's actions in light of the statutory provision and evaluate the overall impact of the respondent's conduct on the applicant’s psychological state.

The court found that the respondent had not discharged the onus under section 11A(1) of proving that the psychological injury was caused by actions taken with respect to discipline or dismissal. The court concluded that the delay in the disciplinary process and the failure to put critical information to the applicant for comment were unreasonable. Additionally, the court found that a pattern of behaviour was unreasonably taken into account, contributing to the applicant’s psychological injury. Given that the applicant was totally incapacitated as a result of the injury, the court awarded the applicant weekly compensation.

The final orders of the court included an award of weekly compensation to the applicant, recognising the respondent's failure to prove that the injury was caused by reasonable actions taken with respect to discipline or dismissal. The court's decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the impact of unreasonable employer actions on employee mental health.

Orders