Singh v Thompson Health Care Ltd

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
STATUS: Reported Decision: Singh v Thompson Health Care Ltd (2009) 8 DDCR 161
CITATION:		Singh v Thompson Health Care Ltd [2009] NSWWCCPD 11
APPELLANT:		Shaun Singh
RESPONDENT:		Thompson Health Care Ltd
INSURER:		CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd
FILE NUMBER:		A1-5199/08
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:		10 September 2008
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:		30 January 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:		Section 10 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; ‘daily or periodic journey’ and ‘place of employment’.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:		President, Judge Keating
HEARING:		On the papers
REPRESENTATION:		Appellant:		Teakle Ormsby Conn
Respondent:		Moray & Agnew
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:		The decision of the Arbitrator dated 10 September 2008 is revoked and the matter is remitted to the same Arbitrator for re-determination in accordance with this decision.
The costs of the first arbitration proceedings are to follow the costs of the second arbitration hearing. The Respondent to pay the Appellant’s costs of the appeal.

INTRODUCTION

1. On 7 June 2007, Mr Singh, an assistant nurse at a Randwick nursing home, drove to work at about 9pm and parked his car in the staff car park.  He then walked to the KFC store to buy food, with the intention of returning to work to start his shift at 10pm.  Unfortunately Mr Singh never commenced his shift because he was the victim of an unprovoked attack by two men when he was buying his meal.  Mr Singh was injured in the attack and was taken to hospital by ambulance.

1. The question for the Arbitrator was whether Mr Singh was still on a periodic journey to his place of employment (section 10 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’)), when he was assaulted, and therefore his injuries were compensible, or whether he had already completed the journey when he drove to work and parked his car.

1. The Arbitrator found that Mr Singh had completed his journey prior to the assault and therefore the injuries were not work related.  Mr Singh appeals this decision on the basis that the Arbitrator failed to properly apply the law in relation to journey claims.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

1. On 8 October 2008, Mr Shaun Singh (‘the Appellant/ Worker’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ (‘the Application’) in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 10 September 2008.

1. The Respondent to the appeal is Thompson Health Care Pty Ltd (‘the Respondent/Employer’).

1. Mr Singh alleges that he suffered injuries to his left shoulder, face, left eye, right buttock and anxiety in the assault.

1. The Respondent’s insurer, CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd (‘CGU’) accepted provisional liability for Mr Singh’s claim in respect of weekly compensation payments from 7 June 2007 to 29 August 2007 and for the payment of medical expenses.

1. On 31 January 2008, CGU issued a section 74 Notice disputing Mr Singh’s claim on the basis of sections 4, 10 and 11 of the 1987 Act.  It relied…