An employment tribunal has ruled the family of a mining executive who suffered a fatal heart attack while performing a hotel gym workout on a business trip to China should be eligible to apply for compensation, because the exercise was conducted with “the implied encouragement” of the man’s employer.

Key points:

  • Erik Palmbachs, 60, was exercising in a hotel gym in Hangzhou when he suffered a heart attack
  • His widow sought compensation but that was knocked back
  • An employment tribunal has overturned that decision, ruling that Mr Palmbachs was “induced or encouraged” to use the gym

Erik Palmbachs, 60, suffered a fatal heart attack in November 2018, while exercising at the Marriott Hotel in Hangzhou.

Mr Palmbachs had taken up a position as chief financial officer with Core Lithium about a month earlier, and was on a business trip for his employer.

His widow Denise sought compensation, but the claim was knocked back by statutory authority and insurer ReturnToWorkSA, and the dispute was then referred to the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET).

In a judgement, SAET Deputy President Miles Crawley found that the very presence of a gym at the hotel was evidence in Ms Palmbachs’s favour.

The tribunal heard that, on November 12, Mr Palmbachs — who had “developed severe and extensive coronary artery disease” over several years — was exercising alone at the hotel gym about 6:55am when he suffered a coronary rupture.

He was taken to Hangzhou Hospital but was pronounced dead.

The tribunal heard evidence from both parties, and a lawyer for Ms Palmbachs argued that her husband’s injury “arose in the course of employment”, which was “presumed to be a significant contributing cause”.

“The applicant asserts that the employer’s encouragement to undertake the activity can be implied from the fact that the worker was provided with hotel accommodation which included a gym,” Judge Crawley wrote.

But that claim was challenged by ReturnToWorkSA, whose lawyer contended “the gymnasium workout was not an activity induced or encouraged by the employer”.

Judge Crawley considered whether Mr Palmbachs’s workout constituted a “social” or “sporting activity”, which would have exempted it from classification as a compensable injury, but ruled in favour of Ms Palmbachs.

Judge Crawley determined that, by arranging accommodation with a gym, Mr Palmbachs’s employer had encouraged him to use the facility.

Judge Crawley concluded that the “rejection of the applicant’s claim must be set aside”.

Posted , updated