Price v Ausgrid - [2021] NSWPIC 350

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Price v Ausgrid [2021] NSWPIC 350
APPLICANT:	Benjamin Price
RESPONDENT:	Ausgrid (formerly Energy Australia)
MEMBER:	Anthony Scarcella
DATE OF DECISION:	15 September 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Accepted injuries to the bilateral shoulders; whether the applicant suffered psychological condition as a consequence of the accepted bilateral shoulder injuries; disputed travel expenses between the Central Coast and metropolitan Sydney for treatment; section 60(2B) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Kirunda v State of New South Wales (No 4), Munce v Thomson Cool Rooms Pty Ltd, Stewart v New South Wales Police Service and NSW Police Force v Hahn considered and applied; Held - the applicant suffered a consequential psychological condition as a result of the accepted injuries to his bilateral shoulders in the course of his employment with the respondent; the travel expenses claimed by the applicant necessitated more travel than was reasonably necessary to obtain the treatment or service within the meaning of section 60(2B) of the 1987 Act.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant suffered a consequential psychological condition as a result of the accepted injuries to his bilateral shoulders in the course of his employment with the respondent on 1 September 2014. 2. The travel expenses claimed by the applicant necessitated more travel than was reasonably necessary to obtain the treatment or service within the meaning of section 60(2B) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
ORDERS MADE:	3. By and with the consent of the parties, the claim for weekly benefits compensation is discontinued. 4. By and with the consent of the parties, the claim for courier costs for the delivery of pharmaceuticals is discontinued. 5. Award for the respondent in respect of the claimed travel expenses under section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 6. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and related expenses as a result of injury on 1 September 2014 under section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
NOTATIONS:	A. The respondent agrees to pay the applicant, on a voluntary basis, weekly compensation at the rate of $880 per week from 5 October 2019 and ongoing. B. The payments referred to above represent the applicant’s full entitlement to statutory weekly payments.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Mr Benjamin Price, is a 44-year-old man who was employed by the respondent, Ausgrid, formerly Energy Australia (Ausgrid), as a linesman.
On 1 September 2014, Mr Price suffered injuries to both shoulders in the course of his employment with Ausgrid.
On 10 September 2014, Mr Price lodged a Claim for Workers Compensation[1] with Ausgrid under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
[1] Application to Resolve a Dispute at pages 6-7
On 10 August 2016, Ausgrid issued a Dispute Notice under section 74 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) denying injury in the form of a bilateral thoracic outlet condition.[2]
[2] Application to…

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 Price v Ausgrid 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 350
Decision Date: 15 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Price was an employee of Ausgrid. Following a work-related injury, Price made a claim for workers compensation, which was accepted by Ausgrid. Price subsequently claimed for additional compensation, alleging he had suffered a psychological condition as a consequence of the bilateral shoulder injuries he had sustained. Ausgrid disputed this claim, as well as the travel expenses claimed by Price for attending appointments in Sydney. The case was heard in the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Price had suffered a consequential psychological condition as a result of the accepted injuries to his bilateral shoulders, and whether the travel expenses claimed by Price were reasonable. The Tribunal considered authorities such as Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Kirunda v State of New South Wales (No 4), Munce v Thomson Cool Rooms Pty Ltd, Stewart v New South Wales Police Service and NSW Police Force v Hahn in determining these issues. The Tribunal found that Price had suffered a consequential psychological condition as a result of the accepted injuries to his bilateral shoulders, and that the travel expenses claimed by Price necessitated more travel than was reasonably necessary to obtain the treatment or service within the meaning of section 60(2B) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the evidence presented in the case, as well as the relevant legal authorities. The Tribunal found that Price's psychological condition was a direct result of the accepted injuries to his bilateral shoulders, and that the travel expenses claimed by Price were excessive. The Tribunal's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the relevant legal principles.

The Tribunal ordered that Ausgrid pay Price compensation for the consequential psychological condition, but denied the claim for excessive travel expenses. This decision provides guidance for employers and employees in similar situations, and highlights the importance of carefully considering the evidence and relevant legal principles when making decisions about workers compensation claims.

Orders