By Mike Toten Freelance Writer

An employee who injured herself while removing work equipment from her car in an under-office car park has successfully claimed workers’ compensation for her injury, despite the employer opposing the claim.

FACTS OF CASE

The NSW Personal Injury Commission (PIC) found that employment was a “substantial contributing factor” to the employee suffering the injury.

The circumstances of the injury were as follows:

  • The employee amputated a finger while removing an employer-supplied laptop from her car before arriving at her office. The car door closed on the finger.
  • She worked three days per week from home and two days at the office. Both locations required her to use the laptop.
  • The car park space was leased by the employer in the same building as the office, but three levels below it.
  • The injury resulted in the employee being off work for two weeks.
  • She claimed the injury occurred “in the course of employment”. She had to be at the office that day and the laptop was an essential job tool. It happened immediately before she was due to commence work. The car park was “within the physical boundaries” of her workplace, despite being on a different level and with other tenants in the same building.

The employer argued against her claim on the following grounds:

  • The injury did not happen “in the course of employment” or “at the workplace”.
  • It could have just as easily happened somewhere else, and irrespective of employment.
  • Therefore, employment was not a “substantial contributing factor” to the injury.

DECISION

The PIC rejected the employer’s claims and awarded the employee $4,013 plus payment of her medical expenses.

It ruled that removing the laptop from her car was incidental to her employment, and closing the car door was a necessary part of doing so. Therefore, employment was a substantial contributing factor towards sustaining the injury.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR EMPLOYERS

Workers’ compensation claims have to meet the following tests:

  • The injury was sustained in the course of employment.
  • For an injury that is not a disease injury, employment was a substantial contributing factor towards sustaining the injury.

Even if the injury occurs while the employee is travelling between home and work, it is possible for it to meet those tests. However, in this particular case, the employee’s journey to work ended when she reached the on-site car park, so she was “within the boundaries of the workplace” when she was injured.

READ THE JUDGMENT

Mervin v Yancoal Australia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 230 (3 May 2024)