The lawyer who represented a council employee who won a worker’s compensation claim after tripping over a puppy fence has defended the judgement, claiming it is ‘uncontroversial’.

Lauren Vercoe, an asset programmer for Adelaide’s City of Charles Sturt Council, was working from home on September 19, 2022 when she tripped over a 60cm puppy fence, breaking her arm and hurting her knee in the fall.

Her initial claim for compensation against Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme was rejected in October 2022.

But in a judgment handed down by the South Australian Employment Tribunal on 18 October, Ms Vercoe’s injury was found to have arisen from her employment.

Auxiliary Deputy President Magistrate Jodie Carrel found the fall occurred during an ‘authorised coffee break at her place of employment’.

The decision, reported by this publication on Tuesday, prompted a wave of incredulity as readers questioned its logic.

‘That’s outrageous when her employer has no health and safety controls over her workplace at home,’ wrote one.

‘They are not responsible for hazards she erected, which wouldn’t have been allowed in her city office.’

But now the lawyer who represented Ms Vercoe has defended the judgement, explaining that it is a ‘no fault system’ for workers compensation claims – and all that they needed to prove was that the injury had been sustained while at work.

Donald Blairs, from personal injury firm Wearing & Blairs, said he was ‘surprised that people are surprised’.

‘People have been lodging workers’ compensation claims for events that happen in their workplaces, which may well include places outside of the usual office, since forever, and this is just a continuation of that,’ Mr Blairs told Daily Mail Australia.

‘If she was a TV repairman in someone’s house who had tripped over a dog fence or something similar, there’d be no controversy. It’s pretty straightforward and no one would dispute that.

‘The only thing that was unique about this case is I suppose she was in her own house as opposed to a different house.’

He added: ‘It’s a no fault system. The legal test here is that it was an injury that occurred in the course of her employment.

‘And getting up to get a cup of coffee is something that’s deemed to be in the course of your employment on a day-to-day basis.’

Mr Blairs said he had seen similar cases and the only difference in this one was that the council decided to fight it.

‘I’ve had other similar cases where people have tripped over their coffee table or the ledge of their front door whilst putting out the washing and they’ve all been accepted,’ he said.

‘This is not unusual. The only thing that is unusual is the council decided to run it as a bit of a test case and came unstuck.’

Asked why the council may have taken the claim to trial, Mr Blairs said: ‘I don’t think it was dollars and cents. I think it was that they wanted to set a precedent.’

City of Charles Sturt Council declined to comment.

Ms Vercoe had put up a 60cm metal pet fence across the doorway to her sun room, which she used as a home office.

The fence was erected to keep a colleague’s puppy, who she was dog-sitting, away from her pet rabbit.

On the day of the incident, Ms Vercoe started work at about 8.30am and rose to make a coffee around an hour later.

But, as she stepped over the fence, one of her feet caught it, causing her to lose balance.

She tried to break her fall but failed and landed with her full weight on her right knee and her right side, experiencing ‘instant and extreme pain’.

Her husband rang an ambulance and she was taken to Royal Adelaide Hospital where she was treated for a fractured arm, a suspected dislocated shoulder and a painful right knee before being discharged later that day.

The SA Employment Tribunal judgment agreed with Ms Vercoe’s submission that she ‘fell during the course of a paid break’ and that her ‘injuries arose out of or in the course of her employment’.

‘Ms Vercoe submitted that it was not to the point whether the council had provided the pet fence, known about the pet fence, or told Ms Vercoe to erect the pet fence,’ the judgment noted.

‘Simply, there is nothing that limits the application of the workers compensation scheme by reason of an injury occurring due to a feature of the workplace not known or authorised by an employer. ‘

In her evidence, Ms Vercoe also shared screenshots of a council video about flexible working arrangements which encouraged employees to ‘take regular breaks, ‘get out in the sunshine’ and ‘enjoy time with the dog’.

Magistrate Carrel also criticised the legal firm who initially rejected Ms Vercoe’s compensation claim for suggesting ‘she exaggerated her evidence when convenient’.

‘Rather, Ms Vercoe is a worker who has done her best to get on with things after suffering a significant injury,’ Magistrate Carrel noted.

Ms Vercoe returned to work after six weeks.

The amount of compensation she is owed will be decided at a later date.

It’s understood the compensation claim was only to cover a couple of medical bills and the few weeks Ms Vercoe was not working.

Ms Vercoe declined to comment.