Archive for category: Uncategorized

“An interesting case ..PTSD linked to the death of Police Officer from cancer”.

A recent determination of the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) has found that a former NSW Police Officer’s psychological injury in 2019, caused his death from metastatic gastroesophageal functional carcinoma 3 years later (Culhana v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) & Ors [2024] NSWPIC 257).

It was uncontested that the deceased had been exposed to many traumatic events over the course of his 16-year policing career, causing PTSD. The workers compensation insurer accepted liability for this injury which was deemed to have occurred in November 2019.

When he was forced to leave work the deceased began to drink and smoke heavily to relieve his symptoms of anxiety and PTSD.

By the end of 2020, the deceased was having difficulty swallowing food and experiencing excessive heartburn. He underwent an endoscopy on 4 March 2021 which revealed that he was suffering with Barrett’s oesophagus. Due to worsening physical symptoms, a further endoscopy was performed on 10 June 2021. This revealed ulcerative oesophagitis and adenocarcinoma. He passed away as a result of adenocarcinoma on 27 November 2022.

It was successfully argued by the legal representative for the deceased’s partner, who brought proceedings as a dependent in a claim for death benefits, that the medical evidence supported the deceased’s work-related PTSD diagnosis and symptoms materially contributed to his increased stomach acid secretion, causing Barrett’s oesophagus and subsequently adenocarcinoma. A PIC Member found that the deceased’s death was because of his psychological injury sustained at work on 3 November 2019 and benefits were payable pursuant to Sections 25 & 26 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).

This decision is currently on Appeal by the State of New South Wales.

The takeout from this case is that an injured worker need not prove that a consequential injury/condition (which may or may not lead to death) was caused by the primary injury but that that primary injury materially contributed to that consequential injury/condition. This decision is also one of the first involving the death of a worker from cancer which has been linked to an accepted PTSD injury.

Other successful cases we have argued involving a finding of consequential injury include:

1. A police officer who had been exposed to trauma during his career ultimately took his own life. In this case, the Respondent disputed that the worker suffered any work-related psychological or physical injury which led to him committing suicide. It maintained that no compensation was payable as the mental health illness that led to his suicide had been precipitated by events related to his personal marital issues and not to any work-related injury. It was successfully argued, based on the evidence, that the marriage breakdown was attributable to the worker’s injuries, which had caused him difficulties for several years, and he would not have had such a severe reaction to the breakdown, resulting in his suicide, had it not been for his mental health difficulties. The Member in this case found that the worker suffered injury arising out of the course of his employment and benefits were payable to his dependants.
2. A worker injured both of his knees in the course of his employment. He had an accepted workers compensation claim for these injuries. As a result, he was severely limited in his ability to exercise resulting in excessive weight gain. He was under the care of a Surgeon to consider gastric band surgery (which was also accepted to be related to the bilateral knee injury) when he died as a result of heart failure, chronic sleep apnoea and morbid obesity. It was successfully argued that the worker’s bilateral knee injuries resulted in his ultimate death and benefits were payable to his dependants.

It is important, as an injured worker, or a dependant of a deceased worker that you seek legal advice if that injury or death may have been caused or contributed to by employment.

Sharla Sutcliffe, Partner, Don Cameron & Associates

 

 

RSPCA Cupcake day is on 20 August 2021.

 On this day, we donate to fight against animal cruelty. Such funds will assist in rehoming animals who have been a victim of cruelty.  Animals are an integral part of our day to day lives. They bring us so much joy and unconditional love.

 Australia has one of the highest rates of pet ownership in the world. They share our homes and win our hearts. They are even members of our family. We all owe them duties of their welfare and care which is regulated by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW) and Companion Animal Act 1998 (NSW).

 As a personal injury lawyer, I have done various disputes dealing with the payment and training of therapy pets. In addition, I assist many injured workers with psychological and physical injuries who require a therapy animal. 

 Pursuant to Section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (“the 1987 Act”), if a worker receives an injury and requires treatment and rehabilitation that is reasonably necessary, the worker’s employer is liable to pay. An assistance dog may be reasonably necessary medical treatment within the meaning of Section 60. of the 1987 Act. 

 I assist many police officers, emergency personnel and corrective service employees who sustain PTSD during the course of their employment. A pet can be a benefit to an injured worker’s mental state. A dog, for instance, can bring so much happiness to those suffering from mental illness. 

 To finish on a pawwwfect note or should I say as I am a cat lady purrrrfect note, at Don Cameron & Associates, we have a variety of pets as seen in the attached graphic.

If you require any assistance or would like to discuss your Workplace Rights and or Compensation, contact Don Cameron & Associates today. Call 1800 627 373

Everyone has the right to feel safe at work. In Australia, there are laws which govern acceptable workplace behaviour and the ways which employers and employees  are expected to act towards each other.

With regards to sexual harassment, the parameters of acceptable behaviour are clearly defined by the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. According to the Act, sexual harassment occurs when:

1. the per­son makes an unwel­come sex­u­al advance, or an unwel­come request for sex­u­al favours, to the per­son harassed; or
2. engages in oth­er unwel­come con­duct of a sex­u­al nature in rela­tion to the per­son harassed;

in cir­cum­stances in which a rea­son­able per­son, hav­ing regard to all the cir­cum­stances, would have antic­i­pat­ed the pos­si­bil­i­ty that the per­son harassed would be offend­ed, humil­i­at­ed or intimidated.

Whilst this law has been in place for nearly 40 years, remedies, particularly the quantum of damages, have lagged behind community expectation. A recent case has shown the willingness of the Federal Court to pay higher than usual damages in certain circumstances.

In Hugh­es v Hill [2020] FCAFC 126, general damages of $120 000 and aggravated damages of $50 000 were ordered to be paid to Ms Catherine Hill by her former employer Mr Owen Hughes after he sexually harassed her both inside and outside of the workplace for nearly 12 months.

Mr Hughes, a solicitor, employed Ms Hill as a paralegal in May of 2015, promising to train her as a solicitor. During the tenure of her employment, Mr Hughes also acted for Ms Hill in a family law matter against her former husband, obtaining confidential personal information in the process. He later attempted to use this information against her during the sexual harassment proceedings, a tactic the judge labelled ‘outrageous’.

Two months after her employment began, so did the harassment.

Mr Hughes’ harassment took many forms; incessant emails in which he professed his desire for a relationship with Ms Hill, unwanted advances in which he lay on Ms Hill’s bed uninvited on a business trip (dressed only in his underwear) and even physical incidents in which he prevented her from leaving her own office until she gave him a hug.

Ms Hill made it repeatedly clear to Mr Hughes that she was not interested in any romantic or intimate relationship with him, going so far as to confront him directly with accusations of harassment, at risk to her ongoing employment. Despite this, Mr Hughes was unrelenting, even implying that her employment and continued training would be made easier if Ms Hill were more receptive of his advances.

Ms Hill suffered greatly due to Mr Hughes’ harassment, which significantly exacerbated her pre-existing anxiety disorder and resulted in her resigning from her employment. The Federal Court of Australia found that despite Mr Hughes’ protestations that his intentions were ‘honourable’ not ‘sexual’ and that $170 000 damages were ‘manifestly excessive’, his actions did in fact constitute sexual harassment and that the damages were entirely within the range of available awards.

This case has garnered significant public attention due to Mr Hughes’ ‘despicable’ conduct (including the use of information obtained as Ms Hill’s solicitor against her in court) and his self-comparison to Mr Darcy from Pride and Prejudice. Legally it is signification because it has displayed a willingness on the part of the Federal Court to award substantial damages in cases of sexual harassment where power imbalances, here the imbalance between employer and employee, increase the level of suffering and distress felt by the victim of the harassment.

The payment of $50 000 ‘aggravated damages’, too, is significant as it displays the court’s ability to add aggravated and exemplary damages in cases where the victim’s suffering is uniquely amplified by the actions of the harasser, here the unethical divulsion of Ms Hill’s personal information and the manner in which he conducted his defence.

This case has changed the landscape of sexual harassment cases. With any legal proceedings, there is a cost-benefit analysis which must be considered by the client and the solicitor, weighing up whether the costs of proceeding with the action outweigh the potential compensation for the client. Sexual harassment cases have in the past not been viable when the risks and rewards are weighed up.

This is no longer necessarily true. If you have experienced sexual harassment, inside or outside the workplace, come in for an obligation free chat. There is nothing to lose.

It is a never-ending source of amazement to me as to why country people and those in regional towns and cities engage big city, big advertising law firms to represent them when they have an accident or some other legal problem.

Is it the perception that a firm that advertises on television or has a multi-million dollar sponsorship of some sporting spectacular will somehow do a better job with their claim. Sometimes it is just that the advertisement appears at the same time as the need and client, unaware of the intricacies of the legal practice is captured by the glossy advertisement thinking that all lawyers must be equally able to fulfill their needs.

Read more »

Australian consumers are very fortunate – we have a fantastic Consumer Protection regime which is generally well enforced by the ACCC.

What we are beginning to discover however, is that the Consumer Protection legislation, at least at face value, has much wider-ranging application than just giving you protection when you buy some dodgy groceries or a new kettle.

So what kinds of relationships between types of cases and these protections are we beginning to see?

Read more »