Successful appeal after worker granted compensation after tripping over puppy gate while WFH
There has been a fresh twist in a widely reported workers compensation case, in which a staffer injured herself tripping over a puppy gate while WFH.
The workers compensation granted to a council staffer who injured herself by tripping over a puppy gate while working from her home in Adelaide has been overturned.
On September 19, 2022, Lauren Vercoe was working from home when she tripped and fell over the 60-centimetre-high metal fence, injuring her right knee and arm.
The City of Charles Sturt asset officer had installed the fence previous day in the doorway of her home office while dog sitting, and was taken by ambulance to the Royal Adelaide Hospital with fracture to her right humerus.
She reported ongoing issues with her right knee after the fall, including shooting pain and numbness.
In October 2024, the court ruled in Ms Vercoe’s favour, granting her compensation
MORE: Six-figure jobs in Australia without a degree
That ruling has now been successfully appealed by her employer.
Last week, the South Australian Employment Tribunal found it was not enough for Ms Vercoe to show her home was her workplace, with the fence’s private purpose calling into question the connection of the accident to her employment.
The tribunal ruled that the fact she was injured while on an authorised break in her workplace “does not remove or satisfy the requirement that employment is a significant contributing cause of the injury”.
“It is not enough to find a causal connection between the injury and employment. Employment must also be a significant contributing cause of the injury,” Tribunal Deputy President Judge Mark Calligeros said.
“If the respondent had sustained injury in her front yard whilst collecting a newspaper during an authorised break because she fell into a hole dug by SA Water, does it necessarily follow that employment was a significant contributing cause of the injury?’
Mr Calligeros said that, in his vie, relying on the fact that Ms Vercoe’s home is her place of employment “oversimplifies the exercise” and that “all relevant facts must be weighed”.
It comes as the highest authority ruling yet when it comes to WFH accidents.
The matter it still yet to be fully determined by a re-hearing, with one judge adamant the responsibility continues to lie on the employer to keep the workplace safe of all dangers, whether or not those are work-related.
MORE: Australia’s fastest growing salaries revealed
Melino Law principal Tahlia Melino ran the appeal for the Local Government Association SA, and said the decision was the first appeal ruling on WFH liability.
She told The Australian Financial Review it would likely have similar application in other states.
“The original decision caused a lot of concern for employers that it would open the floodgates on work injury claims as well as for workers concerned it would lead them being driven back into the workplace,” she said.
“This decision confirms it’s just not enough to be at home on an authorised break to have a compensable injury.”
On that fateful morning, sometime between 9am and 9.30am, Ms Vercoe got up to make a coffee and went to step over the fence but caught her foot, causing her to lose balance and fall forward, landing heavily on her knee and right side.
Initially, the South Australian Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme rejected her claim, saying it was not satisfied her employment was a significant contributing cause of her injuries.
The insurer maintained that the erection of the pet fence across the walkway, creating a “clear and unusual hazard”, without the council’s direction or approval, meant the injury was not caused by her employment.
Ms Vercoe then appealed to the South Australian Employment Court, which then ruled in her favour in October 2024.
She had been working for the Council since 2012 and her duties were mainly office-based, with permission to work-from-home from time to time.
The court was shown a screenshot of a council video about flexible working arrangements, which included encouragement to “take regular breaks”, “get out in the sunshine” and “enjoy time with the dog”.
Magistrate Jodie Carrel rejected the insurer’s argument at the time, finding that “in the context of a statutory compensation scheme not predicated on the notion of fault, the fact [she] created the workplace hazard the day prior, and unbeknown to the council, does not preclude a finding that it is an employment-related cause”.
“This is particularly so, given the extent of [her] autonomy in managing her own health and safety while working from home,” she added.
The matter will now be remitted to the trial judge to consider.
Originally published as Successful appeal after worker granted compensation after tripping over puppy gate while WFH
