Case Summary: State of New South Wales (Sydney Local Health District) v BNV [2026] NSWCA 77

9 June 2026  

State of New South Wales (Sydney Local Health District) v BNV [2026] NSWCA 77
Kirk JA, Adamson JA and Free JA, decision delivered 5 May 2026.

Facts  

BNV, an office clerk at RPA Hospital, had longstanding PTSD and major depression from non‑work trauma. During her employment she experienced perceived bullying and harassment, which aggravated her psychological condition, leading to hospitalisation and incapacity.

The employer accepted there was an aggravation and that work was a contributing factor but denied liability on the basis that work was not the ‘main contributing factor’ under s4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW).

A Personal Injury Commission (PIC) member found in favour of BNV. Matter went before a presidential member who dismissed the employer’s appeal. The employer then appealed to the Court of Appeal on four alleged errors of law. 

Issues on Appeal

The employer argued the presidential member:

1. Misapplied the ‘main contributing factor’ test.

2. Failed to compare pre‑ and post‑employment condition.

3. Failed to consider pre‑existing symptoms and treatment.

4. Reversed the onus of proof.

Decision 

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Ratio / Key findings 

Court of Appeal found that:

1. Main contributing factor

• The presidential member correctly applied s4(b)(ii).

• Pre‑existing conditions did not independently explain the deterioration.

• Workplace stressors were the only contributing factor during the relevant period.

2. Pre‑/post‑employment comparison

• Not strictly required because the employer conceded an aggravation occurred.

• The comparison undertaken supported that work stressors caused the deterioration.

3. Pre‑existing symptoms considered

• The presidential member did consider BNV’s history.

• No evidence showed her condition would have deteriorated to the same extent without work stressors.

4. Onus of proof

• No reversal occurred.

• The member simply found no evidence of any alternative contributing factor.
  

Court emphasised that the appeal failed because the:

• Employer conceded an aggravation occurred during employment.

• Employer conceded work was a contributing factor.

• No evidence of any other factor contributing to the aggravation.

• Presidential member’s reasoning was legally sound.

• Employer’s arguments attempted to re‑litigate factual findings, not legal errors.
  

The ALA thanks Eddy Fry for this contribution.

This is an edited version of a case summary first published by Travis Schultz & Partners. 

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Australian Lawyers Alliance.

Learn how you can get involved and contribute an article.