| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
CITATION: | Winters v Endeavour Energy [2021] NSWPIC 375 |
| APPLICANT: | Ross Winters |
| RESPONDENT: | Endeavour Energy |
| MEMBER: | Glenn Capel |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 28 September 2021 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for hearing aids; no dispute regarding noisy employment and last noisy employer; dispute in respect of notice of injury and notice of claim, and whether hearing aids were reasonably necessary to address small level of industrial deafness; worker unaware that he suffered an injury at the respondent until qualified medical evidence and legal advice was provided; worker had non-work related hearing loss and a lesser degree of industrial deafness; Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Jones, Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd v Sekulovski, Rose v Health Commission (NSW), Bartolo v Western Sydney Area Health Service, Diab v NRMA Ltd, Matthews v State Rail Authority of New South Wales, and Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd discussed and applied; Held – worker gave valid notice of injury and made a valid claim; employment materially contributed to the need for reasonably necessary hearing aids; award for the worker for medical expenses. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | 1. The applicant sustained an injury in the form of sensorineural hearing loss arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent on 7 November 2018 (deemed). 2. The respondent was the last employer who employed the applicant in an employment to the nature of which the injury, sensorineural hearing loss, was due for the purposes of section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Workers Compensation Act1987. 3. The applicant became aware and gave notice of his injury on or about 17 December 2020. 4. The applicant gave notice of a claim for compensation on or about 17 December 2020. 5. The applicant complied with sections 254(1) and 261(1) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998 by reason of s 261(6) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998. 6. The provision of hearing aids is reasonably necessary as a consequence of the applicant’s injury. 7. The respondent is liable for the cost of hearing aids. |
| ORDERS MADE: | 8. The respondent is to pay the applicant $5,495 for hearing aids on production of accounts and/or receipts pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act1987. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
Ross Winters (the applicant) is 57 years old and was employed by Endeavour Energy (formerly Energy Australia) (the respondent and self-insurer) as an electrical fitter from
24 November 2001 until he ceased work due to a neck injury on 7 November 2018.There is no dispute that the applicant developed sensorineural hearing loss as a result of exposure to industrial noise at the respondent, and that the respondent was the last noisy employer for the purposes of s 17(1)(a)(i) of the Workers Compensation Act1987 (the 1987 Act).
On 17 December 2020, the applicant’s solicitor served a notice of claim on the self-insurer for the cost of hearing aids pursuant to s 60 of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Winters v Endeavour Energy 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWPIC 375
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had validly notified his employer of the injury and the claim, and if the hearing aids were reasonably necessary to address his small level of industrial deafness. The court had to consider the interplay between the plaintiff's pre-existing condition and his employment-related deafness in determining the compensation. Various precedents, including Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Jones, Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd v Sekulovski, and Rose v Health Commission (NSW), were discussed and applied to clarify the legal standards involved.
The court held that the plaintiff had provided a valid notice of injury when he became aware of his work-related deafness through qualified medical evidence and legal advice. The court found that the employment materially contributed to the need for the hearing aids, despite the plaintiff's pre-existing non-work-related hearing loss. The court further concluded that the hearing aids were reasonably necessary to address the small level of industrial deafness caused by the employment. Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiff compensation for the medical expenses related to the hearing aids.
The final orders included an award of compensation to the plaintiff for the cost of the hearing aids, reflecting the court's determination that the employment materially contributed to the necessity of these aids.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.