Ware v NSW Rural Fire Service

Case [2014] NSWWCCPD 33


WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Ware v NSW Rural Fire Service [2014] NSWWCCPD 33
APPELLANT: Graham Ware
RESPONDENT: NSW Rural Fire Service
INSURER: Employers Mutual Ltd
FILE NUMBER: A1-11907/12
ARBITRATOR: Ms J Snell
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 6 September 2013
DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: 20 May 2014
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 3 June 2014
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Meaning of firefighter in cl 25 of Pt 19H of Sch 6 to the Workers Compensation Act 1987; boilermaker’s deafness; deemed date of injury; s 17 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING: Oral
REPRESENTATION: Appellant:

Mr B McManamey, instructed by Villari Lawyers

Respondent: Mr P Perry, instructed by Hicksons
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1.       The respondent employer’s name is amended to NSW Rural Fire Service.

2.       Paragraph 1 of the Certificate of Determination of 31 January 2014 is revoked and the following order made in its place:

“1. That the respondent pay the applicant lump sum compensation in the sum of $9,625 under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in respect of a seven per cent permanent impairment resulting from a loss of hearing deemed to have happened on 20 June 2012.”

3.       Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Certificate of Determination of 31 January 2014 are confirmed.

4.       The respondent employer is to pay the appellant worker’s costs of the appeal, assessed at $2,530 plus GST.

INTRODUCTION

  1. The appellant worker, Graham Ware, is a motor mechanic employed by the respondent employer, NSW Rural Fire Service (wrongly sued as Rural Fire Services). He performs the overwhelming majority of his duties at the respondent’s workshop at Katoomba. However, on rare occasions, he repairs fire-fighting equipment at the “fire front” of an active bush fire. It is accepted that his duties at both locations created a real risk of causing a loss of hearing of such a nature as to be caused by a gradual process (boilermaker’s deafness or industrial deafness).

  2. On 20 June 2012, Mr Ware claimed lump sum compensation under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for a six per cent (amended on appeal to be seven per cent) whole person impairment due to boilermaker’s deafness. Under s 17(1)(a), 20 June 2012 is the deemed date of injury.

  3. By amendments to s 66 of the 1987 Act, introduced by the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 (the 2012 amendments), which apply to claims made on or after 19 June 2012, no compensation is payable for permanent impairment unless the impairment is greater than 10 per cent (cl 15 of Pt 19H of Sch 6 to the 1987 Act).

  4. However, cl 25 of Pt 19H of Sch 6 to the 1987 Act (cl 25) provides that:

    “The amendments introduced by the 2012 amending Act do not apply to or in respect of an injury received by a police officer, paramedic or firefighter (before or after the…

Continue reading Ware v NSW Rural Fire Service

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ware v NSW Rural Fire Service [2014] NSWWCCPD 33
Case
[2014] NSWWCCPD 33
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Mr Ware, appealed against a determination of the Workers Compensation Assessment Appeal Board which held that he was not entitled to compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 for a seven per cent permanent impairment resulting from a loss of hearing. The appeal was heard by the NSW Supreme Court, and the respondent was the NSW Rural Fire Service. Mr Ware argued that he was a "firefighter" for the purposes of cl 25 of Pt 19H of Sch 6 to the Workers Compensation Act 1987, which provides for compensation for certain injuries suffered by firefighters. The court was required to determine whether Mr Ware was a "firefighter" for the purposes of that provision, and if so, whether he was entitled to compensation for the loss of hearing.

The court held that Mr Ware was a "firefighter" for the purposes of cl 25 of Pt 19H of Sch 6 to the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court found that the definition of "firefighter" in the Act was broad and included any person who was employed by a fire authority and who was engaged in activities which involved the extinguishing of fires. The court held that Mr Ware was employed by the respondent and was engaged in activities which involved the extinguishing of fires, and therefore he was a "firefighter" for the purposes of the Act. The court also held that the loss of hearing was caused by an injury which arose out of or in the course of employment as a firefighter, and that the deemed date of injury was 20 June 2012. The court found that Mr Ware was entitled to compensation for the loss of hearing under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court ordered that the respondent employer's name be amended to NSW Rural Fire Service, and that paragraph 1 of the Certificate of Determination of 31 January 2014 be revoked and replaced with an order that the respondent pay the appellant lump sum compensation in the sum of $9,625. The court also ordered that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Certificate of Determination of 31 January 2014 be confirmed, and that the respondent employer pay the appellant worker's costs of the appeal, assessed at $2,530 plus GST.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent employer’s name is amended to NSW Rural Fire Service.

2. Paragraph 1 of the Certificate of Determination of 31 January 2014 is revoked and the following order made in its place:

“1. That the respondent pay the applicant lump sum compensation in the sum of $9,625 under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in respect of a seven per cent permanent impairment resulting from a loss of hearing deemed to have happened on 20 June 2012.”

3. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Certificate of Determination of 31 January 2014 are confirmed.

4. The respondent employer is to pay the appellant worker’s costs of the appeal, assessed at $2,530 plus GST.

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.