Poulis v Deicorp Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 57

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Poulis v Deicorp Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 57
APPLICANT:	Janice Poulis
RESPONDENT:	Deicorp Pty Limited
MEMBER:	Fiona Seaton
DATE OF DECISION:	19 February 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether applicant can pursue a claim for weekly compensation pursuant to section 38; Held – the applicant is able to pursue her claim for weekly compensation after the second entitlement period pursuant to section 38.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant is able to pursue her claim for weekly compensation after the second entitlement period pursuant to s 38 of the 1987 Act. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

These proceedings were commenced by Ms Janice Poulis (the applicant) on 11 April 2024 by an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) claiming 19% whole person impairment under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) and weekly benefits compensation from 18 July 2022.
Her claim was brought as a result of a psychological injury suffered while she was employed as a sales representative by Deicorp Pty Limited (the respondent) with deemed date of injury 15 July 2020.
The claim made for weekly benefits compensation in the ARD is for the period from 14 July 2022 (as amended) for the entitlement period of weeks 14 to 130 pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act and ongoing at the preinjury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) rate of $2,060.
The respondent filed a Reply on 3 May 2024 which raised among other issues that the applicant is not incapacitated at all or as alleged, that any incapacity is not related to any injury at work and the rate of weekly compensation claimed is disputed.
The applicant was assessed by Dr Andrews, Medical Assessor, as having 6% whole person impairment on 26 July 2024, confirmed on Appeal on 5 December 2024.
The matter came before Division Head Capel for a further preliminary conference on 30 January 2025.
It was noted at the preliminary conference on 30 January 2025 that the applicant confirmed she sought weekly compensation pursuant to ss 37 and 38 of the 1987 Act.
This was disputed by the respondent who submitted the applicant had only pleaded weekly compensation pursuant to s 37 and no claim had been made in respect of s 38 of the 1987 Act.
Division Head Capel noted the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) is not a tribunal of strict pleadings, the applicant’s Notice of Claim dated 7 December 2023 was in respect of weekly compensation and medical expenses to date and continuing, and the claim was consistent with a claim pursuant to ss 37 and 38 of the 1987 Act.
The Direction issued on 30 January 2025 includes that the ARD is amended so that the claim for weekly compensation commences on 14 July 2022, the respondent was directed to file and serve a list of payments by 7 February 2025, and the matter…

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 Poulis v Deicorp 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

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: [2025] NSWPIC 57
Decision Date: 19 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Poulis v Deicorp Pty Ltd involved the applicant seeking to pursue a claim for weekly compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The applicant alleged that she was entitled to compensation beyond the initial entitlement period as stipulated by section 38 of the Act. The dispute was heard in a relevant court where the applicant argued that her ongoing medical condition justified continued compensation payments.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to pursue her claim for weekly compensation beyond the initial entitlement period, as outlined in section 38 of the Workers Compensation Act. This required the court to interpret the statutory provisions and determine the extent of the applicant’s entitlement to compensation based on her medical condition and the provisions of the Act.

The court, in its reasoning, examined the statutory language of section 38 and the specific circumstances of the applicant’s case. It considered the applicant's medical evidence and the nature of her injury, concluding that her ongoing medical condition justified the continuation of compensation payments. The court found that the statutory provisions did not preclude the applicant from pursuing her claim beyond the initial entitlement period. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, allowing her to pursue her claim for weekly compensation after the second entitlement period.

The final orders of the court permitted the applicant to continue her claim for weekly compensation beyond the initial entitlement period, as provided for under section 38 of the Workers Compensation Act. This decision ensures that the applicant can receive the compensation she is entitled to based on her ongoing medical needs.

Orders