| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | ||||||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | ||||||
| CITATION: | McCarthy v Department of Corrective Services [2010] NSWWCCPD 27 | |||||
| APPELLANT: | Anne Margaret McCarthy | |||||
| RESPONDENT: | Department of Corrective Services | |||||
| INSURER: | Employers Mutual Limited | |||||
| FILE NUMBER: | A1-5623/09 | |||||
| ARBITRATOR: | Mr G Charlton | |||||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 2 November 2009 | |||||
| DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: | 16 March 2010 | |||||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 22 March 2010 | |||||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Psychological injury; section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether the employer’s actions were actions taken with respect to performance appraisal, discipline and/or transfer; whether the employer’s actions were reasonable; whether the worker’s admitted psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by action taken or proposed to be taken with respect to discipline, performance appraisal and/or transfer; non compliance with section 74 of Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; issues in dispute; cause of incapacity; whether a dispute as to cause of incapacity must be particularised | |||||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Deputy President Bill Roche | |||||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Mr D Shoebridge, instructed by WG McNally Jones Staff | ||||
| Respondent: | Mr S Hickey, instructed by Rankin Nathan Lawyers | |||||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | The Arbitrator’s determination of 2 November 2009 is revoked and the following orders made in its place: (a) The respondent employer is ordered to pay to the applicant worker weekly compensation as follows: (i) on the basis of total incapacity under section 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’) from 20 January 2008 until 5 May 2008 in the sum of $1,297.07 per week; (ii) on the basis of partial incapacity under section 40 of the 1987 Act from 6 May 2008 until 30 June 2008 in the sum of $297.07 per week and from 1 July 2008 to 10 August 2008 in the sum of $348.95 per week; (iii) on the basis of partial incapacity under section 38 of the 1987 Act from 11 August 2008 until 10 August 2009 in the sum of $1,079.16 per week, and (iv) on the basis of partial incapacity under section 40 of the 1987 Act from 11 August 2009 to date and continuing in the sum of $348.95 per week. (b) The respondent employer is to pay the applicant worker’s hospital and medical expenses under section 60 of the 1987 Act. (c) It is noted that, under section 52 of the 1987 Act, the applicant worker’s entitlement to weekly compensation ceases on 15 March 2011. (d) The respondent employer is to pay the applicant worker’s costs. The matter is certified as complex and costs under Table 1 are increased by 30%.” | |||||
| The respondent employer is to pay the appellant worker’s costs of the appeal, assessed at $2,200.00 plus GST. | ||||||
BACKGROUND
The appellant worker, Ms McCarthy, started work as a probation and parole officer with the respondent employer, the Department of Corrective Services (‘the Department’), in July 1996. Ms McCarthy’s case is that she sustained a psychological injury (adjustment disorder with anxiety) as a result of being heavily overworked and…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read McCarthy v Department of Corrective Services 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
- [2010] NSWWCCPD 27
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the employer’s actions were related to performance appraisal, discipline, and/or transfer and if those actions were reasonable. Additionally, the court had to assess whether McCarthy’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by actions taken or proposed to be taken by the employer with respect to discipline, performance appraisal, and/or transfer. The court was also required to determine if there was a need for particularisation in disputes concerning the cause of incapacity, and whether the employer had complied with section 74 of the relevant Act.
The court found that the employer’s actions were related to performance appraisal, discipline, and transfer, but were not reasonable. It concluded that McCarthy’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the employer’s actions. The court determined that there was no need for particularisation in disputes as to the cause of incapacity, and that the employer had not complied with section 74 of the Act. As a result, the Arbitrator’s determination was revoked, and new orders were made for the employer to pay weekly compensation to McCarthy, cover his hospital and medical expenses, and pay his costs, with a 30% increase for the complexity of the matter.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Arbitrator’s determination of 2 November 2009 is revoked and the following orders made in its place:
(a) The respondent employer is ordered to pay to the applicant worker weekly compensation as follows:
(i) on the basis of total incapacity under section 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’) from 20 January 2008 until 5 May 2008 in the sum of $1,297.07 per week;
(ii) on the basis of partial incapacity under section 40 of the 1987 Act from 6 May 2008 until 30 June 2008 in the sum of $297.07 per week and from 1 July 2008 to 10 August 2008 in the sum of $348.95 per week;
(iii) on the basis of partial incapacity under section 38 of the 1987 Act from 11 August 2008 until 10 August 2009 in the sum of $1,079.16 per week, and
(iv) on the basis of partial incapacity under section 40 of the 1987 Act from 11 August 2009 to date and continuing in the sum of $348.95 per week.
(b) The respondent employer is to pay the applicant worker’s hospital and medical expenses under section 60 of the 1987 Act.
(c) It is noted that, under section 52 of the 1987 Act, the applicant worker’s entitlement to weekly compensation ceases on 15 March 2011.
(d) The respondent employer is to pay the applicant worker’s costs. The matter is certified as complex and costs under Table 1 are increased by 30%.”
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.