(a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, and

(b) respondent's Reply and attached documents.

A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission's reasons for the determination.

1. In this matter the applicant Issa Jradi seeks an award of lump sum compensation under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for whole person impairment resulting from a psychological/psychiatric injury with a deemed date of injury of 21 January 2022.
2. The matter ran before me on 7 August 2025 with Mr Necovski of counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant instructed by Mr Brian Dodd solicitor of Goodman Spring Legal and

Mr Stephen Hickey of counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent instructed by

Ms Alexandra McCaffery solicitor of Rankin Ellison Lawyers. 3. The hearing was concluded on that day and I delivered an ex-tempore decision in favour of the applicant. 4. For reasons that are unknown the recording of the hearing and the decision failed despite the fact that the computer showed a continuous (albeit rough) transcription of the submissions and decision being recorded at the time. 5. The parties have agreed to accept a written statement of reasons prepared by me on the basis of my notes prepared at the time of the decision and for the purposes of same. 6. The following reasons are as far as possible a correct repetition of the oral reasons given by me on 7 August 2025.

1. Prior to submissions commencing Mr Hickey confirmed that the only issue in dispute (other than the extent of any whole person impairment) was whether the applicant was precluded from recovering workers compensation benefits because of the effect of s 261 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) where the claim for compensation was made more than six months after the date of the injury happened.
2. Mr Hickey confirmed that there was no dispute that the applicant suffered from a psychological injury in the nature of an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration (aggravation) of a disease within the meaning of s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act and that the applicant's employment was the main contributing factor to that aggravation.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

1. I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understood the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

1. The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:

(a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, and

(b) Respondent's Reply and attached documents.

1. No oral evidence was given at the conciliation/arbitration hearing.

1. In this matter the applicant Issa Jradi seek lump sum compensation for whole person impairment resulting from a primary psychological/psychiatric injury.
2. There is no dispute that the applicant suffers from a psychological/psychiatric injury within the meaning of s 4 of the 1987 Act - more specifically in the nature of an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a disease (being pre-existing depression and social anxiety) within the meaning of s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act.
3. The parties agree that the applicant's employment was the main contributing factor to that injury within the meaning of the section.
4. The parties also agree that the deemed date of injury is the date of incapacity being

21 January 2022. 5. The issue that requires determination by me is whether the applicant is precluded from recovering compensation because of the effect of the provisions of s 261 of the 1998 Act. 6. Section 261 relevantly provides:

"(1) Compensation cannot be recovered unless the claim for compensation has been made within 6 months after the injury or accident happened, or in the case of death, within 6 months after the date of death.

(4) The failure to make a claim within the period required by this section is not a bar to the recovery of compensation if it is found that the failure was occasioned by ignorance, mistake, absence from the State or other reasonable cause, and either-

(a) the claim is made within 3 years after the injury or accident happened, or in the case of death, within 3 years after the date of death,or

(b) the claim was not made within that 3 years but the claim is in respect of an injury resulting in death or serious and permanent disablement of a worker."

1. In this matter there is no dispute that the applicant first gave notice of a claim for lump sum compensation on 25 November 2022 which is a period approximately 11 months after the agreed date of injury and outside the six month limit referred on in s 261(1).
2. There is no suggestion that the applicant made a claim for any other form of workers compensation benefits such as weekly compensation or payment of medical expenses prior to that date.
3. In his statement the applicant provides an explanation for the delay in the making of the claim for compensation stating that he received advice from his solicitors in March 2022 but essentially misunderstood that advice to mean that a claim for workers compensation benefits could not be made until his condition had stabilized and consequently did not lodge a claim for compensation.[1]
4. I assume that the applicant was referring to his intention to bring a lump sum claim in that part of his statement.
5. In his statement the applicant went on to state that he was provided with a further written advice from his solicitors in September 2033 before being contacted by those solicitors in October 2022 and was advised to fill out a workers compensation claim which he subsequently did on 25 November 2025.[2]
6. In his submissions Mr Hickey attacked that explanation as being improbable asserting that the applicant would have certainly known that he could make a claim for workers compensation benefits at the time he saw his solicitors in March 2022 and there is no credible explanation as to why he did not do so.
7. Mr Hickey also identified a number of inconsistencies in the applicant's statement and histories to doctors in particular teasing out the applicant's actual employment and travel history from the material before me which is not consistent with the applicant's statement evidence.
8. Mr Hickey essentially seemed to be submitting that I should not accept the applicant's explanation for the failure to give notice of the claim for compensation given the unreliability of the remainder of his evidence.
9. Like Mr Hickey I am puzzled by the applicant's failure to make a claim for weekly compensation and payment of medical expenses given his claims of incapacity and given the fact that he had the benefit of legal advice.
10. I note however that the applicant's evidence as to the advice he received from his solicitors and his evidence that he misunderstood that advice is uncontradicted.
11. I specifically enquired at the commencement of the conciliation/arbitration hearing as to whether there was any application for cross examination of the applicant and was advised by Mr Hickey that no such application was made.
12. The applicant has not been cross examined on his statement, his statement evidence as to receiving legal advice is uncontradicted and there is no other evidence suggesting that the applicant's evidence in relation to that aspect of his claim should not be accepted.
13. In the circumstances and on the balance of probabilities I accept the evidence of the applicant in relation to the reason he did not make a claim for compensation at a date earlier than 25 November 2022 as being correct.
14. I further note that the notice of the claim for compensation was provided well within the three-year period referred to in s 261(4)(a) of the 1998 Act and there is no evidence before me that the late (by approximately five months outside the six month period) notice has caused any prejudice to the respondent.
15. Taking all the factors into account I find that the applicant establishes that his failure to make a claim for compensation within six months of the date of injury was occasioned by his misunderstanding of the legal advice he received which could be regarded as either ignorance (in that he did not otherwise know of the obligation) or mistake (in that he misunderstood advice he had been given) or other reasonable excuse (relying on expert legal advice that was incomplete or inaccurate).
16. The respondent's defence to the applicant's claim under s 261 of the 1998 Act fails.
17. There will be an award for the applicant and the matter will be remitted to the President for a referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of the applicant's whole person impairment.

1. The applicant suffered a primary psychological/psychiatric injury in the course of his employment within the meaning of s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act being an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a pre-existing condition of depression and social anxiety with a deemed date of injury of 21 January 2022.
2. The applicant's employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation of his pre-existing condition of depression and social anxiety.
3. The respondent's defence under s 261 of the 1998 Act fails.
4. There will be an award for the applicant and the matter will be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor.