Sheck-Townsend v Downer EDI Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 310

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Sheck-Townsend v Downer EDI Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 310
APPLICANT:	Benjamin Sheck-Townsend
RESPONDENT:	Downer EDI Limited
SENIOR MEMBER:	Kerry Haddock
DATE OF DECISION:	14 June 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly benefits and medical expenses for psychological injury; respondent did not dispute injury but relied on defence pursuant to section 11A; discipline and/or transfer; Hamad v Q Catering Limited, Ponnan v George Weston Foods, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd, and Fisher v Nonconformist Pty Ltd considered; Held – applicant’s injury not wholly or predominantly caused by respondent’s action; respondent failed to establish section 11A defence; applicant has no work capacity; award for applicant of weekly benefits and section 60 expenses.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. There is an award for the applicant of weekly benefits pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 at the rate of $1,161.38 per week, as indexed, to date and continuing. 2. There is an award for the applicant pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Benjamin Sheck-Townsend (Mr Sheck-Townsend) was employed by the respondent, Downer EDI Limited (Downer) as a truck driver.
It has been accepted that the applicant has sustained a psychological injury.
By letter dated 2 March 2023, the respondent’s insurer, Allianz, advised the applicant that it would provide him with “provisional help”, which was available even if he had not made a formal claim, or it had not finished assessing liability for his injury.
On 12 July 2023, Allianz issued the applicant with a notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.
Allianz disputed that the applicant was entitled to compensation because his psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by the respondent with respect to discipline and/or transfer, pursuant to s 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
Allianz also disputed that the applicant had an incapacity for work resulting from an injury, and that medical or related treatment was reasonably necessary as a result of an injury.
The applicant apparently requested on 6 September 2023 that Allianz review its decision, although the request is not in evidence.
On 19 September 2023, Insurance and Care NSW (icare) issued the applicant with a review notice. Allianz’s decision to dispute liability was maintained.
The applicant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) on
13 February 2024.
The applicant claimed to have sustained a “disease” injury, deemed to have occurred on
14 September 2022. He claimed to have a psychological injury arising as a result of being treated poorly and ostracised as a result of the confidentiality of his safety concerns being broken.
The applicant claimed weekly benefits from 3 August 2023 to date and continuing; and medical expenses of $231.80.
The respondent lodged its Reply on 5 March 2024.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The…

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.

Continue reading Sheck-Townsend v Downer EDI Ltd

Details

AGLC: Sheck-Townsend v Downer EDI Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 310
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 310
Decision Date: 14 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sheck-Townsend v Downer EDI Ltd involved a claim for weekly benefits and medical expenses for psychological injury under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The applicant alleged that the injury was caused by the respondent’s conduct, while the respondent admitted to the injury but invoked section 11A as a defence. This section allows for the denial of benefits if the injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by the employment, or if the injury was caused by the employer's action in response to the employee's misconduct or incompetence. The matter was heard and determined in the Workers Compensation Commission of Queensland.

The central legal issue was whether the respondent could successfully rely on section 11A to deny the applicant’s claim. The court was required to assess whether the applicant's psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the respondent's actions and whether the injury resulted from the respondent's action in response to the applicant's misconduct or incompetence. The court examined the statutory framework, relevant case law, and the specific circumstances of the case to resolve these issues.

The court found that the applicant's psychological injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by the respondent's action. It was established that the respondent's actions were not the primary cause of the injury, and thus the defence under section 11A failed. The applicant was determined to have no work capacity, and the court awarded the applicant weekly benefits and section 60 expenses.

The final orders included an award to the applicant of weekly benefits and reimbursement of medical expenses as per section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The respondent's defence under section 11A was rejected, leading to the full compensation for the applicant's psychological injury.

Orders