Ryan v Regional Imaging Pty Ltd

[2017] NSWWCCPD 48

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:	Ryan v Regional Imaging Pty Ltd [2017] NSWWCCPD 48
APPELLANT:	Courtney Ryan
RESPONDENT:	Regional Imaging Pty Ltd
INSURER:	AAI Ltd t/as GIO – Agent for the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer
FILE NUMBER:	A1-456/17
ARBITRATOR:	Mr A Scarcella
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:	19 July 2017
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	10 November 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:	Section 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; arising out of or in the course of employment; s 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether employment a substantial contributing factor to injury; Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Limited t/as Commander Australia Pty Limited [2009] NSWCA 324; 7 DDCR 75 applied
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	President Judge Keating
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:	Slater & Gordon Lawyers
Respondent:	Moray & Agnew
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1.     The Arbitrator’s determination of 19 July 2017 is revoked and the following orders are substituted in its place: (a) An award in favour of the applicant under s 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 from 17 December 2015 to 31 January 2016 at the rate of $862.16 per week. (b) The respondent employer is to pay the worker’s hospital and medical treatment expenses under s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in the sum of $369.07.

INTRODUCTION

1. The worker was employed as a receptionist. Shortly prior to the end of her shift at 3.30 pm, she was required to attend the local Post Office to post the daily mail. To do this, she left work shortly prior to the end of the shift and drove her own car to the vicinity of the Post Office where she parked and proceeded on foot. After posting the mail, she went to cross the street to return to her vehicle when she was struck by a passing vehicle and was injured.

2. This appeal concerns whether the worker was in the course of her employment when she was injured or in the alternative whether the injury arose out of the employment, pursuant to s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). In either case whether the employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury was also in issue.

3. In the alternative, the appeal concerns whether the worker was on a journey from her workplace to place of abode when she was injured and whether there was a “real and substantial connection” between the employment and incident, pursuant to s 10(3) of the 1987 Act.

4. For the reasons given in this decision, the worker’s appeal is successful.

BACKGROUND

1. Courtney Ryan, the appellant worker, was employed by Regional Imaging Pty Ltd, the respondent employer. Her duties required her to answer telephone calls, make appointments and, prepare and deliver the mail. She was required to deliver the mail to Albury Post Office, when she worked a shift between 7 am and 3.30 pm.

2. On 16 December 2015, Ms Ryan worked a…