- Mr Faltusz claimed workers' compensation following a heart attack, suffered outside of his workplace, while he was waiting for a bus.
- The Tribunal found there was no link between Mr Faltusz's employment and the claimed condition.
- The Tribunal found in favour of the employer.
Background:
Mr Faltusz had been employed with
On
Instead, Mr Faltusz suffered from a critical stenosis in the left circumflex artery in his heart. For several years prior to this incident, Mr Faltusz had experienced episodes of breathlessness and chest discomfort. Mr Faltusz's was also found to have significant heart disease.
Mr Faltusz submitted a workers' compensation claim in respect of a heart attack. Liability for the claim was denied and Mr Faltusz appealed that decision to the
The Law:
The Tribunal was required to consider whether Mr Faltusz had suffered an injury for the purposes of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the SRC Act).
Pursuant to section 5A an "injury" means:
- a disease suffered by an employee; or
- an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment; ...
... but does not include a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee's employment.
Section 5B defines a "disease" to mean:
- an ailment suffered by an employee; or
- an aggravation of such an ailment;
that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee's employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that Mr Faltusz did not suffer a heart attack in
A report provided by Associate
The Tribunal considered whether Mr Faltusz's angina attack was an injury for the purpose of section 5A of the SRC Act. Mr Faltusz argued that his injury arose out of his employment because it occurred outside his place of employment when some of his supervisors were present. However, the Tribunal had regard to the fact that Mr Faltusz was not working at the time due to his previously accepted psychological injury. Mr Faltusz was not required or expected to be outside his place of employment at the time he suffered the angina attack. The Tribunal found that Mr Faltusz did not suffer an injury within the meaning of section 5A of the SRC Act.
The Tribunal then considered the disease provisions set out in section 5B of the SRC Act as to whether there was liability to pay compensation for the angina. When considering whether Mr Faltusz's employment had contributed, to a significant degree, to his ailment, the Tribunal found that Mr Faltusz had for some time, suffered from substantially elevated cholesterol levels, and prior to 2015, had experienced several angina attacks. The Tribunal found that there was no link between Mr Faltusz's SAD and his cholesterol levels or his coronary artery disease. Mr Faltusz's angina attack was caused by a build-up of cholesterol plaques in the relevant artery.
The Tribunal found that Mr Faltusz's condition did not fall within the meaning of an injury under either section 5A or 5B of the SRC Act and he was not entitled to workers' compensation pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Ms
HBA Legal
Level 20
140
6000
Tel: 89265 6000
Fax: 89265 6099
E-mail: sarah.tempest@hbalegal.com
URL: www.hbalegal.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source