Mieth v Sydney Trains - [2021] NSWPIC 354

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Mieth v Sydney Trains [2021] NSWPIC 354
APPLICANT:	Aaron Mieth
RESPONDENT:	Sydney Trains
MEMBER:	Deborah Moore
DATE OF DECISION:	16 September 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Applicant claimed as a result of behaviour “broadly classified as bullying, harassment, intimidation and interpersonal conflict with his manager” he suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing psychological injury; no evidence such bullying or harassment occurred; substantial evidence from the respondent in support of this conclusion; misperception of events is a manifestation of his underlying and pre-existing psychological condition; State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Fritzi Chemler, Townsend v Commissioner of Police  and Yeo v Western Sydney Area Health Service all considered; Held - award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Award for the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Aaron Mieth, was employed by the respondent, Sydney Trains, as a customer service attendant.
He claimed that as a result of behaviour “broadly classified as 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 11 June 2020 subsequently amended to 8 May 2020.

By an Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) registered in the Commission on 14 May 2021 he sought weekly benefits from 8 May 2020 to 18 January 2021 and s 60 expenses.

Liability was declined by the respondent (a self-insurer) in a s 78 Notice dated 23 July 2020 on the basis that the applicant had not sustained a psychological injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent and that any psychological condition was a manifestation of a pre-existing psychological condition.

The parties attended an arbitration hearing on both 5 and 25 August 2021.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The principal issue in dispute was whether the applicant sustained an injury within the meaning of s 4(b)ii of the Workers Compensation Act1987 (the 1987 Act) and incapacity.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and considered in making this determination:

(a) Applicationand attached documents;
(b) Reply and attached documents;

(c) Application to Admit Late Documents filed by the applicant on 2 August 2021;

(d) Application to Admit Late Documents filed by the respondent on 2 August 2021, and

(e) Application to Admit Late Documents filed by the respondent on 10 August 2021.

THE EVIDENCE DISCUSSED

The applicant's case

The applicant’s statements

In his initial statement dated 23 June 2020 Mr Mieth said:

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: [2021] NSWPIC 354
Decision Date: 16 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mieth was a conductor for Sydney Trains, the respondent. He claimed he suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing psychological injury due to behaviour by his manager that he broadly classified as bullying, harassment, intimidation and interpersonal conflict. The matter was heard by the NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal. The central legal issues were whether the applicant's claims of bullying, harassment, intimidation and interpersonal conflict with his manager were substantiated, and if these claims were not substantiated, whether they were a misperception stemming from his underlying psychological condition. The Tribunal examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered relevant case law, including State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Fritzi Chemler, Townsend v Commissioner of Police and Yeo v Western Sydney Area Health Service.

The Tribunal found there was no evidence to substantiate the applicant's claims of bullying, harassment, intimidation and interpersonal conflict with his manager. Instead, the Tribunal concluded that the misperception of these events was a manifestation of his underlying and pre-existing psychological condition. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had provided substantial evidence in support of this conclusion. The Tribunal also found that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims, and that the claims were not supported by objective evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim and ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding. The Tribunal held that the applicant's claims were not substantiated and that the misperception of events was a manifestation of his underlying psychological condition. The Tribunal also found that the respondent had provided substantial evidence in support of this conclusion and that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. The Tribunal ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding.

Orders