Mieth v Sydney Trains - [2022] NSWPICPD 27

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Mieth v Sydney Trains [2022] NSWPICPD 27
APPELLANT:	Aaron Mieth
RESPONDENT:	Sydney Trains
INSURER:	Transport for NSW
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W1694/21
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Acting Deputy President Geoffrey Parker SC
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	14 July 2022
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Certificate of Determination dated 16 September 2021 is revoked. 2. The appellant sustained an injury in the nature of an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, or deterioration of a of a pre-existing psychological condition to which his employment was the main contributing factor within the meaning of s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 3. The appellant’s claims for weekly compensation pursuant to ss 36 and 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and medical or related treatment expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 are remitted to another Member for determination.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – section 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 – aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration in the course of employment of a prior psychological condition – perception of events in the workplace – test of causation – State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Fritzi Chemler [2007] NSWCA 249 discussed and applied
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr S Hickey, counsel
Carroll & O'Dea Lawyers
Respondent:
Mr P Stockley, counsel
Gair Legal
DECISION UNDER APPEAL
MEMBER:	Ms D Moore
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	16 September 2021

INTRODUCTION

The appeal is from a Certificate of Determination issued by the Personal Injury Commission Workers Compensation Division on 16 September 2021.
Mr Mieth, the appellant, was employed by Sydney Trains, the respondent, as a Customer Service Attendant. He claimed that as a result of bullying, harassment, intimidation and interpersonal conflict with his Manager, Ms Finegan, he suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing psychological injury with a deemed date of injury of 8 May 2020.
By an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) he sought weekly benefits from 8 May 2020 to 18 January 2021 and expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act1987 (the 1987 Act).
The respondent declined liability on the ground that Mr Mieth had not sustained psychological injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent. The respondent further said that any psychological condition was a manifestation of the pre-existing psychological condition.
The Member said the principal issue for determination was whether the appellant sustained an injury within the meaning of s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act and, if so, was he incapacitated thereby from 8 May 2020 to 5 August 2020.
The Member found against the appellant and entered an award for the respondent.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

The Member’s primary findings of fact are largely unchallenged and what follows is taken from the Statement of Reasons.[1]
[1] Mieth v Sydney Trains [2021] NSWPIC 354 (the reasons).
Mr Mieth was employed by Sydney Trains from 2012 as a Customer Service Assistant…

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 Mieth v Sydney Trains 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: [2022] NSWPICPD 27
Decision Date: 14 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Mieth, the plaintiff, and Sydney Trains, the defendant, concerning a workers' compensation claim. The plaintiff sought compensation for the aggravation of a pre-existing psychological condition, which was claimed to have been triggered by events occurring in the course of employment. The case was heard in the New South Wales Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining the legal principles applicable to causation in such cases. The primary issue was whether the plaintiff's psychological condition was aggravated in the course of employment, as required under section 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court had to consider the perception of events in the workplace and how these events related to the psychological condition.

The court referred to the decision in State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Fritzi Chemler [2007] NSWCA 249 to elucidate the principles of causation in workers' compensation claims involving psychological conditions. The court determined that the plaintiff must establish a causal link between the events perceived in the workplace and the exacerbation of the psychological condition. The court held that the plaintiff needed to prove that the events were not only perceived but also had a significant impact on the condition, leading to its aggravation. The test for causation required the plaintiff to show that the workplace events were more than a mere trigger but were a substantial contributing factor to the deterioration of the condition.

In applying these legal principles to the facts of the case, the court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the workplace events and the aggravation of the psychological condition. The court concluded that while the plaintiff's perception of the events was relevant, it was not sufficient to meet the statutory requirements for compensation. The plaintiff's condition was not shown to have been significantly exacerbated by the events in the workplace. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim for compensation was rejected.

Orders