Insurance
Return to PublicationsIn this case the Court dismissed an appeal brought by Mr Abdul Raad against a decision which had awarded him $75,547 in damages. Mr Raad had slipped and fallen on a wet, tiled area located in a shopping village occupied by VM & KTP Holdings. The damages awarded to him reflected a 10% reduction in potential damages by virtue of a finding of contributory negligence on Mr Raad’s part.
Raad v VM & KTP Holdings Pty Ltd as Trustee for VM & KTP Nguyen Family Trust [2017] NSWCA 190
The matter was heard in the Coal Mines sittings of the District Court Residual Jurisdiction in Newcastle on 27 July 2017 before Ashford DCJ. The Plaintiff made a claim for compensation as a result of injury to his head and neck sustained on 13 June 2012, with a consequential injury to his right arm due to pain radiating from his neck, sustained.
Bajric v EGL MA Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (16 August 2017)
Ms Ferguson (the Plaintiff) is a former employee of the NSW Police Force (the first Defendant). On 8 December 2007, she sustained an injury to her right wrist whilst restraining an offender in the course of her employment. She underwent multiple surgeries in respect of that injury.
The Star Pty Ltd v Mitchison [2017] NSWCA 149 was an appeal by The Star against an interlocutory decision in the District Court. The interlocutory decision determined that Mr Mitchison’s action against The Star for common law damages was not fettered by Chapter 6 and 7 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW).
In Christos v Curtin University of Technology [2017] WASCA 110, the Court of Appeal interestingly found in favour of the employer in a psychiatric injury claim for damages. Dr Christos (the Appellant) initially commenced proceedings against Curtin University of Technology (the Respondent) for breach of contract, breach of statutory duty and negligence, which allegedly caused his psychiatric injury. At first instance, the action was dismissed.
Section 44BB of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (the “Act”) allows a worker to seek a merit review of a work capacity decision provided the “application for review [is] made within 30 days after the worker receives notice” of the decision.
Bhusal v Catholic Health Care [2017] NSWSC 838
The Workers Compensation
Commission (“WCC”) has very recently arrived at two decisions that provide
clarity to workers compensation laws in respect of noise induced hearing loss.
The respective decisions examine attribution of liability and limitation
periods.
In recent times insurers managing claims involving both lump sum compensation claims and work injury damages (“WID”) threshold disputes have been faced with decisions of the Commission...
Favetti Bricklaying Pty Limited v Benedek and Anor [2017] NSWSC 417
Is a worker entitled to rely on an assessment of WPI for a secondary psychological injury for the purposes of establishing that he or she is a worker with high needs or a worker with the highest needs?
Walid Abu-Ali v Martin-Brower Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWWCC 276
Section 66(1A) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 provides that workers may only make one claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment in respect of an injury from which that impairment results.
Draca V Formtec Group (NSW) Pty Limited [2016] NSWWCCPD 53
In this case the NSW Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on behalf of the NSW Police against a decision finding in favour of the Plaintiff, Mr Briggs.
State of NSW v Briggs [2016] NSWCA 344
A worker to whom compensation is payable under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 may elect to claim either compensation for permanent loss under Sections 66 and 67 or damages for negligence under the common law. They are not entitled to claim both.
Cipriano v Sew Eurodrive Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1630
Rankin Ellison acted for a small business (Austral IGA) on instructions from an insurer client in which the District Court accepted that the business was not liable for injuries suffered by a worker when she twisted her knee whilst placing pricing tickets on a low shelf. The Court accepted our argument that it should take a “common sense approach” to causation, and that none of the precautions available to the defendant would have prevented the injury.
Cicino v F & C Tassone & Sons Pty Ltd [2016] NSWDC 191
Sirikci v Hewlett Packard Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWWCCPD 45
O’Farrell v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2015] NSWCA 48.
Perisher Blue Pty Ltd v Nair-Smith [2015] NSWCA 90 (9 April 2015)
Harrington v New South Wales Police Force [2015] NSWWCCPD 31
KING v PHILCOX [2015] HCA 19