Target Australia Pty Ltd v Lewington

Case [2009] NSWWCCPD 23


WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Target Australia Pty Ltd v Lewington [2009] NSWWCCPD 23
APPELLANT: Target Australia Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT: Heather Lesley Lewington
INSURER: Self insured
FILE NUMBER: A1-007061/08
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 11 November 2008
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 10 March 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Section 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; substantial contributing factor.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: His Hon. Judge Keating, President
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Respondent: Evergham Solomons
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1.       For the reasons given in this decision, the Arbitrator’s determination made on 11 November 2008 is confirmed.

2.       The Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs of the appeal.

INTRODUCTION

  1. The issue in this case is whether Ms Lewington’s employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury to her left knee.  The injury occurred when Ms Lewington walked up a flight of stairs at work and heard her left knee click and felt pain in her knee.

  1. The Arbitrator found in Ms Lewington’s favour, awarding her compensation payments and payment of medical expenses on the basis that she had suffered an injury and that her employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury.

  1. Her employer appeals that decision on the basis that the Arbitrator misapplied section 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’).

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

  1. On 8 December 2008 Target Australia Pty Ltd (‘the Appellant/Target’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 11 November 2008.

  1. Target is a member of the Coles Group and Coles Group Limited–Injury Service (‘Coles’) holds a self-insurer licence for workers compensation.

  1. The Respondent to the Appeal is Ms Heather Lewington (‘the Respondent/Worker’). 

  1. Ms Lewington is a 47-year-old register operator. She worked at Target at Tamworth 20 hours per week and had been employed at Target for approximately four years prior to the alleged work injury.

  1. On 22 February 2008, Ms Lewington had completed her shift and was walking up a flight of stairs between the first and second floor of the Target store in order to retrieve her personal belongings from her locker in the staff room.  About half way up the flight of stairs her left knee clicked and she immediately experienced pain. She continued up the stairs, collected her bag and went home.

  1. Ms Lewington sought medical treatment and underwent radiological investigations, which demonstrated a medial meniscal tear in the left knee.  Her treating doctor has recommended that she undergo arthroscopic surgery.

  1. Coles, on behalf of Target, refused to accept provisional liability by letter dated 27 February 2008.  Ms Lewington ultimately received weekly compensation benefits for the period from the date of injury to 24 March 2008 under an interim payment direction dated 22 April 2008.

  1. By letter dated 25 March 2008, Coles served a section 74 notice and denied liability on the basis that injury did not arise out…

Continue reading Target Australia Pty Ltd v Lewington

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Target Australia Pty Ltd v Lewington [2009] NSWWCCPD 23
Case
[2009] NSWWCCPD 23
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Target Australia Pty Ltd v Lewington involved the Appellant, Target Australia, contesting a determination by the Arbitrator that it was liable for compensation to the Respondent, Mr. Lewington, under Section 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The dispute centred around whether Target Australia could be held liable for the compensation of Mr. Lewington, who had been diagnosed with an occupational disease, despite the company's argument that his disease was not caused by his employment with them but rather by another substantial contributing factor outside of work.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Target Australia could be held liable for the compensation of Mr. Lewington under Section 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, specifically concerning the interpretation of the term "substantial contributing factor." Target Australia argued that the disease was not caused by their employment but by another substantial contributing factor outside of work, thus absolving them of liability. The court had to determine if the Arbitrator's decision was correct in finding that Target Australia was liable for the compensation.

The court found that the Arbitrator had correctly interpreted the statutory provisions and had applied the correct legal principles. The court held that the term "substantial contributing factor" under Section 9A of the Act does not absolve an employer from liability if the disease was caused by the employment, even if there was another contributing factor. The court confirmed the Arbitrator's determination, holding that Target Australia was liable for the compensation of Mr. Lewington as per the statutory provisions. Additionally, the court ordered that Target Australia pay the Respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. For the reasons given in this decision, the Arbitrator’s determination made on 11 November 2008 is confirmed.

2. The Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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.