Whittard v TAFE NSW

Case [2022] NSWPIC 275


CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 

CITATION:

Whittard v TAFE NSW [2022] NSWPIC 275

APPLICANT: Russell Whittard
RESPONDENT: TAFE NSW
MEMBER: Karen Garner
DATE OF DECISION: 16 May 2022
CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION- Psychological injury; claim for permanent impairment lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act); applicant alleged he sustained a psychological injury due to bullying and harassing behaviour at work by his supervisor; whether the applicant sustained an injury pursuant to sections 4(a), 4(b)(i) and 9A of the 1987 Act; respondent raised defence pursuant to section 11A(1) of the 1987 Act; whether the applicant’s employment was the main contributing factor to his psychological injury; whether the psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of the employer with respect to performance appraisal or discipline; Held– applicant sustained a compensable psychological injury pursuant to sections 4(b)(i) of the 1987 Act; injury not wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action of employer taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of the employer with respect to performance appraisal or discipline; matter referred to President for referral to a Medical Assessor for determination of whole person impairment.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

1.     The applicant sustained a psychological injury in the course of his employment with the respondent on 8 May 2018 (deemed).

2.     The applicant’s employment was the main contributing factor to his injury.

3.     The applicant’s injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by on behalf of the respondent with respect to performance appraisal or discipline.

ORDERS MADE:

1.    I remit the matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of the whole person impairment due to psychological injury with a deemed date of injury of 8 May 2018.

2.     The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are:

(a)   the Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents;

(b)   the Reply and attached documents;

(c)   Application to Admit Late Documents filed on behalf of the applicant, dated 5 April 2022, and

(d)   Application to Admit Late Documents filed on behalf of the respondent, dated 31 March 2022.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

  1. Mr Russell Whittard (the applicant) was employed as a Work Health Safety Specialist by TAFE NSW (the respondent).

  2. The applicant claims that he sustained psychological injury due to being subjected to bullying and harassment behaviour by the respondent’s Safety Manager, Linda Watts (Ms Watts) and by the respondent’s Head of Safety, James Jammo (Mr Jammo).

  3. By notice dated 30 July 2018 issued pursuant to s 74 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), Allianz Australia Insurance (the insurer) denied the applicant’s claim for weekly payments and medical expenses on the basis that:

    (a) it disputed the alleged psychological or psychiatric injury arises out of or in the course of the applicant’s employment within the meaning of s 4 of the

Continue reading Whittard v TAFE NSW

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Whittard v TAFE NSW [2022] NSWPIC 275
Case
[2022] NSWPIC 275
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Whittard, sought compensation for a psychological injury he claimed to have sustained due to bullying and harassment by his supervisor while working for TAFE NSW. The dispute was heard in the Dust Disease Tribunal of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had sustained a compensable injury under sections 4(a), 4(b)(i) and 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), and if the employer's actions constituted a defence under section 11A(1) of the 1987 Act. The court was required to determine whether the applicant's employment was the main contributing factor to his psychological injury, and whether the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable actions taken by the employer with respect to performance appraisal or discipline.

The court examined the evidence and found that the applicant had sustained a compensable psychological injury under section 4(b)(i) of the 1987 Act. The court held that the injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable actions of the employer taken or proposed to be taken with respect to performance appraisal or discipline. Consequently, the employer's defence under section 11A(1) of the 1987 Act was unsuccessful. The matter was remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the whole person impairment due to the psychological injury, with a deemed date of injury of 8 May 2018. The Medical Assessor was directed to review specific documents to assist in making this determination.

The court made two orders. Firstly, the matter was remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of the whole person impairment due to the psychological injury. Secondly, the documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor were specified, including the application to resolve the dispute, the reply, and applications to admit late documents filed on behalf of both parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I remit the matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of the whole person impairment due to psychological injury with a deemed date of injury of 8 May 2018.

2. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are:

(a) the Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents;

(b) the Reply and attached documents;

(c) Application to Admit Late Documents filed on behalf of the applicant, dated 5 April 2022, and

(d) Application to Admit Late Documents filed on behalf of the respondent, dated 31 March 2022.

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.