Verrelli v Georges River Council - [2024] NSWPIC 717

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Verrelli v Georges River Council [2024] NSWPIC 717
APPLICANT:	Rocco Verrelli
RESPONDENT:	Georges River Council
MEMBER:	Gaius Whiffin
DATE OF DECISION:	19 December 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for psychological injury; claims for weekly benefits compensation and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60, as well as lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66; determination re injury required before claims can be determined; consideration of applicant’s and witnesses’ statements, medical reports and other treatment records, claim correspondence, and factual material; consideration of whether the applicant sustained a psychological injury in accordance with section 4 as a result of employment events occurring during the course of his employment with the respondent; Attorney General’s Department v K, Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Limited, Dasreef v Hawchar, Forrester v Harris Farm Pty Ltd, BGV v Waverley Council, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, AV v AW, Commissioner for Railways v Bain, Fletcher International Exports Pty Limited v Barrow & Anor, and Perry v Tanine Pty Limited t/as Ermington Hotel considered; consideration of whether the respondent can establish that the applicant's psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by it with respect to transfer, retrenchment, dismissal or the provision of employment benefits pursuant to section 11A; Pirie v Franklins Limited, Department of Education and Training v Sinclair, Manly Pacific International Hotel Pty Limited v Doyle, Insurance Australia Group Services Pty Limited v Outram, Ponnan v George Weston Foods Limited, Temelkov v Kemblawarra Portugese Sports and Social Club Limited, Smith v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW, and Hamad v Q Catering Limited considered; Held – the applicant sustained injury in accordance with section 4(b)(ii); the respondent has failed to establish its defence under section 11A; the applicant is referred to medical assessment to determine the degree of his whole person impairment.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. As a result of events occurring in the course of the applicant's employment with the respondent, he has sustained a psychological injury pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). His employment with the respondent is the main contributing factor to that injury. 2. Pursuant to s 16(1)(a)(i) of the 1987 Act and as pleaded, the applicant’s psychological injury will be deemed to have happened on 17 December 2020. 3. The respondent has failed to establish (pursuant to s 11A of the 1987 Act) that the applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by it with respect to transfer, retrenchment, dismissal, and/or provision of employment benefits. The Commission orders: 4. I remit these proceedings to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) for assessment as follows: (a)…

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 Verrelli v Georges River Council

Details

AGLC: Verrelli v Georges River Council [2024] NSWPIC 717
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 717
Decision Date: 19 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Verrelli v Georges River Council, the applicant brought an action for workers' compensation, seeking weekly benefits compensation, treatment expenses, and a lump sum compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The applicant contended that he had sustained a psychological injury during his employment with the council. The council, in turn, denied that the applicant's injury met the criteria for workers' compensation and argued that any psychological injury was predominantly caused by reasonable actions taken in relation to transfer, retrenchment, dismissal, or the provision of employment benefits. The court was required to determine whether the applicant's psychological injury was a result of his employment, and if so, whether the council's actions played a predominant role in causing the injury.

The court meticulously reviewed the applicant's and witnesses' statements, medical reports, treatment records, correspondence, and other relevant material. It examined relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine whether the applicant's psychological injury was attributable to his employment and whether the council could establish that its actions were the predominant cause of the injury. Cases such as Attorney General’s Department v K, Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Limited, and others were considered to understand the nuances of psychological injury claims. The council's defence was evaluated against precedents like Pirie v Franklins Limited and Hamad v Q Catering Limited, among others, to assess the validity of its argument.

After thorough consideration, the court found that the applicant sustained a psychological injury as defined in section 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act. The council's argument that the applicant's injury was predominantly caused by its reasonable actions was rejected. Consequently, the applicant was entitled to pursue his claims for compensation. The court ordered the applicant to undergo a medical assessment to determine the degree of his whole person impairment, which would be essential for calculating his entitlements. This ruling ensures that the applicant's claims for weekly benefits, treatment expenses, and lump sum compensation can proceed under the Act.

Orders