| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
Citation: | Nand v Toll Transport Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 595 |
| APPLICANT: | Rohitendra Nand |
| RESPONDENT: | Toll Transport Pty Ltd |
| Member: | Cameron Burge |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 26 October 2022 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for permanent impairment compensation in relation to alleged psychological injury; whether applicant suffered a psychological injury; if so, whether that injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the reasonable actions of the respondent with respect to performance appraisal, discipline and/or dismissal; Held – the applicant suffered a psychological injury in the course of his employment to which his employment was the main contributing factor; Attorney General’s Department v K and State Transit Authority of NSW v Chemler followed and applied; the causes of the applicant’s injury were multi-factorial including matters which in no way relate to the issues which the respondent raises in support of its defence under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); the respondent’s defence under section 11A of the 1987 Act is not made out; the matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the permanent impairment arising from the psychological injury. |
| determinations made: | 1. The applicant suffered a psychological injury in the course of his employment with the respondent with a deemed date of injury of 3 April 2020. 2. The applicant’s employment with the respondent was the main contributing factor to the injury. 3. The respondent's defence pursuant to s 11A of the Workers’ Compensation Act 1987 is not made out. 4. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the permanent impairment arising from the following: Date of injury: 3 April 2020 (deemed); Body systems claimed: psychiatric/psychological injury, and Method of assessment: whole person impairment. 5. The documents to be referred to the Medical Assessor to assist with their determination to include the following: (a) this Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons; (b) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attachments; (c) Reply and attachments, and (d) respondent’s Application to Admit Late Documents dated 15 September 2022 and attachments. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
Rohitendra Nand (the applicant) was employed by Toll Transport Pty Ltd (the respondent) as a truck driver for approximately four to five years from approximately 2015.
The applicant alleges that during the course of his employment he suffered a psychological injury as a result of ongoing interpersonal difficulties together with bullying, repetitive use of profane and derogatory language, racial slurs, aggressive behaviour and exclusionary tactics. A number of the allegations also relate to the approach of co-workers to the applicant wearing a mask during the COVID 19 pandemic.
The respondent denies liability, alleges the applicant did not suffer a psychological injury and says if he did, it was wholly or predominantly caused by the respondent's reasonable action taken with respect to performance appraisal, discipline and/or dismissal.
The applicant had previously brought proceedings with respect to this injury, which were dealt with in Consent Orders in January 2021…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Nand v Toll Transport Pty Ltd 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
- [2022] NSWPIC 595
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the nature and extent of Nand's psychological injury, as well as the causative factors leading to it. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the respondent's actions constituted the predominant cause of the injury, thereby potentially absolving the respondent of liability under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court needed to consider whether the injury was work-related and whether the respondent's actions were a significant contributing factor to the injury.
The court found that Nand did indeed suffer a psychological injury in the course of his employment, and that his employment was the main contributing factor to this injury. The court followed the principles established in Attorney General’s Department v K and State Transit Authority of NSW v Chemler, determining that the causes of Nand's injury were multi-factorial, including matters unrelated to the respondent's actions. Therefore, the court concluded that the respondent's defence under section 11A of the 1987 Act was not made out. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the degree of permanent impairment arising from the psychological injury.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.