Renew God's Program Pty Ltd v Kim

Case [2019] NSWWCCPD 45


DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Renew God’s Program Pty Ltd v Kim [2019] NSWWCCPD 45
APPELLANT: Renew God’s Program Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT: Ki Jung Kim
INSURER: icare Insurance for NSW
FILE NUMBER: A1-189/19
ARBITRATOR: Mr J Isaksen
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 19 March 2019
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 30 August 2019
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Section 9B of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; duty to give reasons
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Michael Snell
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Bartier Perry
Respondent: Young & Muggleton
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1.    The Arbitrator’s decision dated 19 March 2019 is confirmed.

INTRODUCTION

  1. Ki Jung Kim (the worker) was employed by Renew God’s Program Pty Ltd (the employer). He suffered a cardiac incident on 26 July 2018,[1] which resulted in his admission to the Ryde Hospital from 31 July 2018 to 2 August 2018. His background is Korean, and he did not have an entitlement to “Medicare eligibility or valid private insurance”.[2] Ultimately a pleaded claim for weekly compensation was not pressed, and the claim was pursued solely as one for medical and related expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act1987 (the 1987 Act). The issues were whether the worker suffered ‘injury’, and whether the requirements of s 9B of the 1987 Act were satisfied. The worker succeeded on both counts, and an award was made for the payment of his “reasonable medical expenses for treatment of his heart attack injury”. This appeal is brought by the employer against that award, and turns solely on the issue pursuant to s 9B. 

    [1] Worker’s statement, [4], Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), p 87.

    [2] Ryde Hospital discharge referral, ARD, pp 46–50.

BACKGROUND

  1. The worker described his work as that of a “furniture removalist and cleaner”. He stated it “involved cleaning out the contents of deceased persons from Housing Commission Units”. He described the duties:

    “There was a lot of lifting of heavy objects, bending, carrying furniture being television units, washing machines. Refrigerators and accumulated rubbish. The items had to be carried from the unit to the ground and out to transport trucks. It was very heavy and difficult work”.[3]

    [3] Worker’s statement, [2]–[3], ARD, p 87.

  2. The worker said of his work on the date of injury:

    “On 26th July 2018, I was at work lifting and removing furniture from a vacated unit on the third level to the ground floor. I started at 8.00 am, and worked all day. There was no lift in the building. I was working by myself. At 5.30 pm, I noticed my right ankle was swollen and I was in a lot of pain. At 7.00 pm, I developed tightness in my chest as I was about to return home. I had disrupted sleep that night”.[4]

    [4] Worker’s statement, [4], ARD, p 87.

  3. The worker stated that he could not work on the following day (a Friday) due to chest pain,…

Continue reading Renew God's Program Pty Ltd v Kim

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Renew God's Program Pty Ltd v Kim [2019] NSWWCCPD 45
Case
[2019] NSWWCCPD 45
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Renew God's Program Pty Ltd brought an application against Kim seeking confirmation of an arbitration decision dated 19 March 2019. The dispute arose from a workers compensation claim where the Arbitrator had awarded Kim compensation. Renew God's Program contested the Arbitrator's decision, arguing that the Arbitrator failed to provide adequate reasons for the award. The case was heard in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Arbitrator's decision contained sufficient reasons to justify the award and whether the failure to provide such reasons was grounds for overturning the decision. The court had to examine the statutory framework provided by section 9B of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, which mandates that the Arbitrator provide reasons for decisions that are not agreed upon by the parties. The primary focus was on the adequacy of the reasons given by the Arbitrator.

The court examined the Arbitrator's decision and found that the reasons provided were adequate under the statutory requirements. The Arbitrator had outlined the key facts, the relevant law, and how the decision was reached. The reasons were sufficient to allow the parties and the court to understand the basis of the decision. Consequently, the court confirmed the Arbitrator's decision.

The final order of the court was to confirm the Arbitrator's decision dated 19 March 2019, affirming that the reasons provided were adequate and did not warrant overturning the award.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Arbitrator’s decision dated 19 March 2019 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.