Legal Research
Cases
Smith v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd

Smith v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd

Case [2022] NSWPIC 141 5 April 2022

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Smith v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 141
APPLICANT:	Julie Smith
RESPONDENT:	Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Michael Wright
DATE OF DECISION:	5 April 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claims for psychological injury, right knee and lumbar spine; consideration of factual material and treatment documents; consideration of CCTV and surveillance footage viz Asim v Penrose & Anor; physiological effects of psychological injury, Stewart v NSW Police Service, NSW Police Force v Gurnhill considered; perception based upon real events in psychological injury, Attorney General’s Department v K considered; consideration of the main contributing factor; AV v AW considered; section 32A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and real employment; Wollongong Nursing Home Pty Ltd v Dewar considered; pre accident weekly earnings and relevant pre injury earning period considered relating to two deemed dates of injury and whether discretion as to pre injury 52 weeks in absence of relevant categories pursuant to the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016; Held- award in favour of applicant for psychological, right knee and lumbar spine injuries, referred to Medical Assessor assessment of whole person impairment (psychological) and award for applicant weekly compensation for lumbar spine, right knee and psychological injuries.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant sustained chronic adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood, pursuant to section 4(b)(i) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), deemed to have happened on 7 February 2019 as a result of her employment with the respondent. 2. The applicant sustained injury to her right knee on 7 February 2019 in the course of her employment with the respondent. 3. The applicant sustained aggravation of pre-existing degenerative lumbar spine disease, pursuant to section 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act, deemed to have happened on 23 October 2018 as a result of her employment with the respondent. 4. Respondent to pay the applicant weekly payments of compensation: a. pursuant to section 36(1) of the 1987 Act, from 20 May 2019 to 18 August 2019 at the rate of 95% of pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE), and b. pursuant to section 37(1) of the 1987 Act, from 19 August 2019 to 19 November 2021 at the rate of 80% of PIAWE. 5. Liberty to the parties to apply in respect of PIAWE. 6. Matter remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for the assessment of the degree of permanent impairment in respect of primary psychological injury deemed to have happened on 7 February 2019. Documents to be included in the brief to the Medical Assessor are the Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, the Reply and attached documents, and the Applications to Admit Late Documents dated 29 July 2021, 27 August 2021, 26 October 2021 and 17 January 2022, with attached documents.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

In an Application to Resolve a Dispute, Ms Julie Smith (the applicant) claimed weekly compensation and lump sum compensation in respect of injuries said to have been sustained in the course of her employment with…

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 Smith v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Smith v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 141
Case: [2022] NSWPIC 141
Decision Date: 5 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Smith v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd involved a claim for workers' compensation by the applicant, Smith, against the respondent, Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd. The applicant alleged injuries to his right knee and lumbar spine, along with psychological harm, arising from his employment. The matter was heard and determined in the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales.

The legal issues central to the decision revolved around the nature and extent of the applicant’s injuries, particularly whether the psychological injury was causally linked to his employment and if the injuries met the criteria for compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court had to consider medical evidence, treatment records, and other documentation, including CCTV and surveillance footage. The court also evaluated the physiological effects of the psychological injury, drawing on precedents such as Stewart v NSW Police Service and NSW Police Force v Gurnhill. The assessment of the main contributing factor to the psychological injury was informed by the decision in AV v AW.

The Tribunal found that Smith had sustained the injuries claimed, including psychological harm, as a result of his employment. The court considered the real events that formed the basis of the psychological injury, in line with the reasoning in Attorney General’s Department v K. The Tribunal examined the evidence regarding Smith's pre-accident weekly earnings, considering the two deemed dates of injury and whether the discretion under the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 was applicable in the absence of relevant categories. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation for his injuries. The award included a reference to the Medical Assessor’s assessment of whole person impairment for the psychological injury, and Smith was granted weekly compensation for his lumbar spine, right knee, and psychological injuries.

The final orders of the Tribunal included a determination that Smith was entitled to compensation for his psychological, right knee, and lumbar spine injuries, and specified the weekly compensation amount.

Orders