Personal Injury Commission Decision- Primary vs Secondary Psychological Injuries

Emma Thomson & Taylor O'Connor

11/12/2025

The case of Heydeman v Ability Options [2025] NSWPIC 385 is a significant decision by the Personal Injury Commission, addressing the distinction between primary and secondary psychological injuries under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). The case highlights that trauma sustained from a workplace physical injury, could amount to a primary psychological injury, entitling a worker to make a lump sum compensation claim in respect of permanent impairment for their psychological injury.

Background

The Applicant, Ms Roslyn Heydeman, was employed as a disability support worker by the Respondent, Ability Options from 2015. On 28 April 2021, Ms Heydeman sustained a neck injury during an assault by a client. Following the incident, she returned to work on restricted hours but ceased work on 24 September 2021 due to the deterioration of her psychological condition.

The Respondent’s insurer accepted liability for the Ms Heydeman’s neck injury and a secondary psychological condition. However, Ms Heydeman claimed that she sustained a primary psychological injury as a result of the incident, entitling her to lump sum compensation in respect of permanent impairment.

Issues for Determination

The primary issue in dispute was whether the Ms Heydeman’s claim for permanent impairment arose from a primary psychological injury sustained on 28 April 2021, or whether her psychological condition was secondary to her physical injury, as defined under section 65A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW).

Section 65A(5) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)

The distinction is critical because compensation for permanent impairment is not payable for secondary psychological injuries, which was outlined by Member Seaton as a disentitling provision.

Evidence of Both Parties

Applicant’s Evidence:

Ms Heydeman described being distressed and in shock following the assault on 28 April 2021.

She reported bullying and hostility from colleagues and management upon her return to work, which exacerbated her psychological condition.

Respondent’s Evidence

The Respondent argued that the Ms Heydeman’s psychological condition was secondary to her physical injury and did not constitute a primary psychological injury under section 65A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW).

They maintained that the Ms Heydeman’s psychological symptoms arose as a consequence of chronic pain and workplace interactions following the physical injury.

Findings of the Commission

The Member Fiona Seaton of the Personal Injury Commission determined that the Ms Heydeman sustained both a primary psychological injury and a secondary psychological injury.

Key findings included:

Primary Psychological Injury: The assault on 28 April 2021 involved exposure to actual or threatened serious injury, satisfying Criterion A of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) for PTSD. Ms Heydeman's distress and shock immediately following the incident, as well as her subsequent symptoms, supported the finding of a primary psychological injury.
Secondary Psychological Injury: Ms Heydeman's psychological condition was also exacerbated by chronic pain and workplace interactions, constituting a secondary psychological injury.
Medical Evidence: The Commission preferred the opinion of Dr Kumar, Ms Heydeman’s treating psychiatrist, over that of Dr Young. Dr Kumar had the benefit of regularly observing and treating Ms Heydeman, and his opinion was deemed careful and considered.

The Commission acknowledged that the Ms Heydeman’s pre-existing psychological conditions and prior workplace incidents rendered her more vulnerable to psychological injury. However, this did not preclude a finding of primary psychological injury.

Orders Made

The Personal Injury Commission determined that Ms Heydeman was entitled to claim lump sum compensation for permanent impairment resulting from her primary psychological injury. The matter was remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess the Ms Heydeman’s whole person impairment.

Key Takeaways

This case underscores the importance of distinguishing between primary and secondary psychological injuries under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The distinction has significant implications for an Applicant’s entitlement to compensation.

The Commission will place significant weight on the opinion of the treating psychiatrist, highlighting the importance of comprehensive and consistent medical evidence in psychological injury claims.

This decision highlights that whilst a worker may sustain a physical workplace injury, if they sustain trauma from this incident, this may amount to a primary psychological injury, allowing a lump sum compensation claim to be investigated.

Foye Legal can assist workers navigate their workers compensation entitlements and assist in disputing an insurer’s adverse liability decision.

Contact Foye Legal for a confidential consultation.