We have previously reported on the worker’s attempt to combine the whole person impairment for two separate mental injuries to catapult her over 15% whole person impairment in section 65.
To recap:
- The worker, Denese Woods, sustained a mental injury in the course of her employment with the Northern Territory of Australia (NTA) in 2017.
- Liability for the claim for that injury was accepted.
- The worker sustained a further mental injury in the course of her employment with the NTA in 2020. Liability for a claim for this injury was disputed.
- She relied on a medical report of Dr Takyar who assessed her as having a 11% whole person impairment (WPI) in respect of the first injury.
- Upon a reassessment the WPI was reduced to 9% and paid by NTA.
- The NTA accepted liability for the 2020 injury.
- The worker relied on a further medical report of Dr Takyar who assessed her as having a 9% WPI in respect of the first injury and a 13% WPI in respect of the second injury.
- The Employer paid the second injury WPI.
- The worker sought payment of 22% WPI, with a deduction for what had already been paid for the first injury.
Work Health Court
The employer was held to have paid permanent impairment compensation to the worker in respect of both the first injury and the second injury prior to commencement of the proceeding.
Supreme Court
The court dismissed the worker’s appeal holding that there had been no error in the Work Health Court’s construction of the Act and the Guidelines.
Court of Appeal
In Woods v Northern Territory of Australia [2024] NTCA 9, delivered 18 December 2024, the Court dismissed the worker’s appeal saying in support:
- the centrality of an ‘injury’ to the employer’s liability to pay compensation under the Act, which indicates that compensation is payable in respect of an injury and points against a ‘whole of person’ approach to the concept of permanent impairment in s 71;
- the absence of any provisions in the Act dealing with the issues as to the worker ‘double-dipping’ and respective liabilities of employers (and insurers) for the additional compensation payable where a subsequent injury takes the worker over the 15% threshold; and
- the effect of the appellant’s construction on the validity and/or construction and operation of the Guidelines.
Learnings
The worker’s argument always seemed overly ingenious and failed at three levels of the courts in the Northern Territory. The worker has a costs order against her.
