Romanous Constructions Pty Ltd v Arsenovic
Case
•
[2009] NSWWCCPD 82
•17 July 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Romanous Constructions Pty Ltd v Arsenovic [2009] NSWWCCPD 82
[2009] NSWWCCPD 82
17 July 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Romanous Constructions Pty Ltd brought a claim against its former employee, Mr Arsenovic, under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The dispute centres on the nature and extent of the injuries Mr Arsenovic sustained during his employment and his entitlement to compensation. The case was heard in the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales, presided over by Arbitrator M.D. McIvor.
The key legal issues in this case were whether Mr Arsenovic suffered a primary psychological injury or a secondary psychological injury, and whether he was entitled to compensation for both a physical injury and a psychological injury. Additionally, the court had to consider the effect of a lump sum compensation payment made for the physical injury before the assessment of impairment from the psychological injury.
The Tribunal concluded that Mr Arsenovic had indeed suffered both a primary and a secondary psychological injury. The Tribunal found that the primary psychological injury arose from the physical injury and the secondary psychological injury was caused by the stress and anxiety experienced as a result of the physical injury. The Tribunal also determined that Mr Arsenovic was entitled to compensation for both the physical and psychological injuries. However, the Tribunal ruled that the payment of lump sum compensation for the physical injury prior to the assessment of impairment from the psychological injury did not affect the entitlement to compensation for the psychological injury.
The Tribunal confirmed the Arbitrator’s determination of 24 March 2009, upholding the award of compensation for both the physical and psychological injuries sustained by Mr Arsenovic.
The key legal issues in this case were whether Mr Arsenovic suffered a primary psychological injury or a secondary psychological injury, and whether he was entitled to compensation for both a physical injury and a psychological injury. Additionally, the court had to consider the effect of a lump sum compensation payment made for the physical injury before the assessment of impairment from the psychological injury.
The Tribunal concluded that Mr Arsenovic had indeed suffered both a primary and a secondary psychological injury. The Tribunal found that the primary psychological injury arose from the physical injury and the secondary psychological injury was caused by the stress and anxiety experienced as a result of the physical injury. The Tribunal also determined that Mr Arsenovic was entitled to compensation for both the physical and psychological injuries. However, the Tribunal ruled that the payment of lump sum compensation for the physical injury prior to the assessment of impairment from the psychological injury did not affect the entitlement to compensation for the psychological injury.
The Tribunal confirmed the Arbitrator’s determination of 24 March 2009, upholding the award of compensation for both the physical and psychological injuries sustained by Mr Arsenovic.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Workers Compensation Law
Legal Concepts
-
Psychological Injury
-
Compensation
-
Lump Sum Compensation
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Ivanovic v Mullungeen Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 56
Cases Citing This Decision
16
Qannadian v Bartter Enterprises Pty Limited
[2016] NSWWCCPD 50
Sydney South West Area Health Service v Dyer
[2012] NSWWCCPD 46
Awick v Formcorp Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2011] NSWWCCPD 50
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
P & O Ports Limited v Hawkins
[2007] NSWWCCPD 87
State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Fritzi Chemler
[2007] NSWCA 249
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles
[2001] NSWCA 305