WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | |||
| STATUS: Remitted on Appeal: This decision has been the subject of a remitter from the Court of Appeal: see Sapina v Coles Myer Limited [2009] NSWCA 71 | |||
| CITATION: | Sapina v Coles Myer Limited [2008] NSWWCCPD 8 | ||
| APPELLANT: | Sylvia Sapina | ||
| RESPONDENT: | Coles Myer Limited | ||
| INSURER: | Self insured | ||
| FILE NUMBER: | WCC4331-07 | ||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 18 September 2007 | ||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 18 January 2008 | ||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; causation of psychological injury; finding of reasonable action not based on the evidence; irrelevant consideration; basis for amount of weekly payments. | ||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Acting President Gary Byron | ||
| HEARING: | Determined ‘on the papers’ | ||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: Walker Legal | ||
| Respondent: Lander & Rogers | |||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | The decision of the Arbitrator dated 18 September 2007 is revoked, and the following order is made in its place:. | ||
| 1. Award for the Respondent Employer. | |||
| 2. No order as to costs. | |||
| No order made as to the costs of this Appeal. | |||
BACKGROUND
On 16 October 2007 Ms Sylvia Sapina, the Appellant Worker, sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 18 September 2007.
The Respondent to the Appeal is Coles Myer Limited.
Coles Myer Limited is and was at all material times, self-insured.
Coles Myer employed Ms Sapina in July 1997 as a shop assistant in the delicatessen of its supermarket at Merrylands. Two and a half years later, Ms Sapina requested a transfer to the Epping store where she was appointed to the position of Delicatessen Manager, supervising eight other people. Some time later her marriage broke up and she sought a further transfer to the Cambridge Gardens store so that she could be near her sons. Some difficulties occurred at work at Cambridge Gardens, and she then requested a further transfer to the St Marys store.
Following a conflict at the Cambridge Gardens store, Ms Sapina submitted a complaint to the Human Resources section of Coles Myer, alleging that the Store Manager had discriminated against her and bullied her. She transferred to the position of Delicatessen Manager at the St Marys store in April 2004. She claimed within two weeks that the Store Manager’s behaviour towards her made her feel belittled and uncomfortable. Subsequently, she submitted a claim for payment of workers compensation, which was rejected.
Ms Sapina took nine weeks off work, and upon her return to duty in June 2004 she was informed that the Store Manager had transferred to another location. She states that everything was fine until September 2006 when a new Store Manager and a Store Support Manager were appointed. Ms Sapina claims that she did not get along with the new Store Support Manager from the outset, and that she was rude to her.
In mid September Ms Sapina suffered a heart scare at a time when she thought that the Store Manager…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sapina v Coles Myer Limited 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2008] NSWWCCPD 8
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues at hand were whether the Arbitrator had made findings regarding the causation of the psychological injury that were not supported by the evidence, and whether the Arbitrator had considered irrelevant factors when determining the amount of weekly payments. The court had to decide whether the Arbitrator's decision was correct and whether the compensation payments were appropriate.
The Appeals Panel found that the Arbitrator had not properly considered the evidence when making findings about the causation of the injury, and had instead made findings based on assumptions that were not supported by the evidence. The Panel also found that the Arbitrator had considered irrelevant factors when determining the amount of weekly payments. As a result, the Panel revoked the Arbitrator's decision and made their own decision regarding the compensation payments. The Panel ordered that the weekly payments be reduced to a level that was deemed appropriate based on the evidence presented.
The final orders of the Appeals Panel included the revocation of the Arbitrator's decision and the substitution of a new decision that reduced the weekly payments for the psychological injury. The Panel also ordered that the employer pay the reduced weekly payments to the injured party. This decision provides guidance for future cases involving workers' compensation and the causation of psychological injuries.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision of the Arbitrator dated 18 September 2007 is revoked, and the following order is made in its place:.
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.