Thomas v Newcastle Permanent Building Society - [2021] NSWPIC 198

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Thomas v Newcastle Permanent Building Society [2021] NSWPIC 198
APPLICANT:	Suzanne Thomas
RESPONDENT:	Newcastle Permanent Building Society
MEMBER:	Michael Wright
DATE OF DECISION:	22 June 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Claim for weekly compensation for psychological injury; whether there was a pre-existing psychological condition; consideration of whether alleged personal stressors were causative rather than work issues; consideration of section 4(b)(i) disease or section 4(b)(ii) aggravation of a disease; whether alleged personal stressors were competing causative factors in consideration of whether employment was the main contributing factor; Held- found there was no pre-existing condition; personal stressors were not causative of the psychological injury and were not competing causative factors; found employment was the main contributing factor; award for the applicant for claim for weekly compensation.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission finds: 1. The applicant sustained psychological injury under section 4(b)(i) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) arising out of or in the course of her employment with the respondent with date of injury deemed to be 4 November 2019. 2. The applicant’s employment with the respondent was the main contributing factor to her psychological injury. 3. The applicant had no current capacity for work for the periods 22 February 2020 to 8 March 2020 and 4 April 2020 to 30 April 2021. The Commission determines: 4. Respondent to pay the applicant pursuant to section 37(1) of the 1987 Act weekly compensation: a. for the period 22 February 2020 to 8 March 2020 at the rate of $1031.03 per week, and b. for the period 4 April 2020 to 30 April 2021 at the rate of $868.23 per week. 5. Respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical, hospital and related treatment expenses pursuant to section 60 of the 1987 Act as a result of the applicant’s psychological injury with a deemed date of 4 November 2019. 6. The Commission notes that the respondent has paid leave entitlements to the applicant in the above periods and credit to be given to the respondent for payments made. 7. Applicant has liberty to apply in respect of deemed date injury.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

In an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) , Ms Suzanne Thomas (the applicant) claimed weekly compensation and related medical and treatment expenses for a psychological injury said to be sustained in the course of her employment with Newcastle Permanent Building Society (the respondent) with injury on 4 November 2019 in the course of employment said to be sustained due to excessive workload without adequate support and interpersonal conflicts in the workplace.
In a section 78 notice by Allianz dated 30 July 2020 and a section 287A review decision by iCare dated 15 March 2021, the respondent disputed that employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a disease injury as required by section 4(b). It was also disputed that employment was a substantial contributing factor as required by section 9A. Capacity for work was also disputed.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thomas v Newcastle Permanent Building Society 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWPIC 198
Decision Date: 22 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thomas v Newcastle Permanent Building Society was heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court, where the applicant sought weekly compensation for a psychological injury sustained during employment. The dispute centred on whether the applicant's psychological injury was caused by work-related factors or personal stressors, and whether the injury constituted a disease under the Workers Compensation Act. The applicant argued that the employment was the main contributing factor to the injury, while the respondent contended that personal stressors were the primary cause and that any work-related factors were not significant.

The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant had a pre-existing psychological condition that could have contributed to the injury. Additionally, the court had to assess whether personal stressors were causative of the injury or if they were merely competing factors. The court also needed to decide if the injury fell under section 4(b)(i) as a disease or section 4(b)(ii) as an aggravation of a disease, and whether personal stressors were competing causative factors with work-related issues.

In its decision, the court found that there was no evidence of a pre-existing psychological condition. The personal stressors identified were not considered causative of the psychological injury, and they did not compete with work-related factors as the primary cause. The court held that employment was the main contributing factor to the injury. Consequently, the court awarded the applicant compensation for the psychological injury under the Workers Compensation Act.

The final orders of the court recognised that the applicant's psychological injury was work-related and awarded weekly compensation accordingly. The respondent was directed to pay the compensation, acknowledging that the employment was the main contributing factor to the psychological injury.

Orders