NSW Police Force v P

Case [2010] NSWWCCPD 26


WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: NSW Police Force v P [2010] NSWWCCPD 26
APPELLANT: NSW Police Force
RESPONDENT: P
INSURER: Allianz Australia Insurance Limited as agent for the TMF No 3
FILE NUMBER: A1-4395/09
ARBITRATOR: Mr J McDermott
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 18 September 2009
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 15 March 2010
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Psychological injury; sections 4, 9A and 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; adequacy of reasons.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Acting Deputy President Deborah Moore
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: DLA Phillips Fox
Respondent: Baker & Edmunds
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: The decision of the Arbitrator dated 18 September 2009 is confirmed.
The Appellant is to pay the costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

  1. The Respondent, Ms P, (nee  P) commenced employment with the Appellant, the New South Wales Police Force, in May 1988 working at various Sydney suburban locations.

  1. In a 116 page statement, she set out the history and circumstances surrounding her claim. Given the nature of the dispute, I consider that it is appropriate that I summarise the background to her claim in some detail, as follows.

  1. In August 1991 she joined the Witness Security Unit as part of the State Protection Group, involved often difficult covert operations. In April 1992 she was trained as a police negotiator, and attended what she described as “numerous incidents of a high risk nature” such as sieges and suicides. In 1993 she and her then husband, also a police officer, made application for a transfer to Bourke.

  1. In November 1993 she was seconded to Sutherland Detectives Office. She was involved in the investigation of the Jannali bush fires in January 1994. She said that the death and destruction she witnessed caused her considerable distress.

  1. In March 1994 she and her husband transferred to Bourke. On 16 June 1994 she was the victim of a violent assault and feared for her life. She continued at work but said that she became anxious and had trouble sleeping. She also said that she was aware of resentment by other officers because of her qualifications and “being female” which lead to conflict at the Bourke station.

  1. As a result of her conduct during the Jannali fires, she was awarded the Commissioner’s Valour Award for bravery. She was notified of this while at Bourke. Comments from her Patrol Officer about her travelling to Sydney for the ceremony she said made the event “distressing and upsetting.” When she resumed work wearing her medal on the right side, she was wrongly castigated by other officers for not wearing it on the left. As a consequence, she said she was distressed and broke down, becoming worried and anxious about her work.

  1. In February 1995 she eventually contacted the Appellant’s Employee Assistance Branch where it was suggested that she seek medical attention. She ceased work and consulted Dr Greenburg at Bourke Hospital who referred her to a visiting psychiatrist, Dr…

Continue reading NSW Police Force v P

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
NSW Police Force v P [2010] NSWWCCPD 26
Case
[2010] NSWWCCPD 26
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of NSW Police Force v P involved a police officer who claimed psychological injury following a workplace incident. The dispute was heard in the NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal, with the officer appealing the decision of the Arbitrator who had rejected his claim. The Arbitrator had determined that the police force had not breached its duty to provide a safe working environment, and that the officer's psychological injury was not caused by the incident in question.

The primary legal issue was whether the Arbitrator's decision was adequately reasoned. The officer argued that the reasons provided were insufficient to properly address the evidence and the applicable law. Specifically, the officer contended that the Arbitrator failed to adequately consider the statutory provisions under sections 4, 9A, and 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. These sections relate to the employer's duty to provide a safe workplace and the criteria for establishing causation in psychological injury claims.

The Tribunal considered the arguments and found that the Arbitrator had provided sufficient reasons to justify the decision. The Tribunal held that the reasons were comprehensive and addressed the relevant statutory provisions. It was determined that the Arbitrator had correctly applied the law and properly assessed the evidence. The officer's claim that the reasons were inadequate was therefore rejected.

In confirming the Arbitrator's decision, the Tribunal emphasised the importance of thorough and reasoned decisions in workers' compensation matters. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided met the required standard, and thus the appeal was unsuccessful. The decision of the Arbitrator dated 18 September 2009 was confirmed in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Arbitrator dated 18 September 2009 is confirmed.

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.