Austin v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force)

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Austin v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2025] NSWPIC 467
APPLICANT:	Toby Austin
RESPONDENT:	State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force)
SENIOR MEMBER:	Kerry Haddock
DATE OF DECISION:	9 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim by police officer for weekly benefits; accepted claim for psychological injury deemed to have occurred in 2012; worker claimed to have sustained further injury in 2024; insurer disputed that the worker had sustained further injury but continued to pay benefits under claim for injury in 2012; consideration of Federal Broom Co Pty v Semlitch, Commissioner for Railways v Bain, Cant v Catholic Schools Office, Shlimon v Steric Pty Ltd, and Haddad v The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd; Held – worker sustained injury pursuant to section 4(b)(ii) in 2024; finding made accordingly; respondent to pay weekly benefits in accordance with finding and have credit for payments made; respondent to pay applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The respondent is to pay to the applicant weekly benefits compensation from 26 September 2024 to date and continuing, calculated in accordance with the finding that the applicant has sustained an injury pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, deemed to have happened on 26 September 2024. 2. The respondent is to have credit for weekly benefits compensation paid. 3. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed. 4. The parties have liberty to apply in the event they are unable to agree on the calculation of the weekly benefits compensation. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Toby Austin (Mr Austin), is employed by the respondent, State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) (NSWPF) as a police officer.
Mr Austin has sustained an accepted psychological injury, deemed to have occurred on
25 March 2012. He has been paid weekly benefits, and medical and related expenses have been paid under that claim.
On 5 December 2024, the applicant completed a worker’s injury claim form (the claim form).
The applicant claimed to have sustained a psychological injury on 26 September 2024, having stopped work on that day.
The claim form stated that at the time of the injury, the applicant was performing full policing duties as a Chief Inspector. He was performing administrative and managerial duties at Technology Command. He had been at Castle Hill until April 2018. “Attendance at traumatic and violent incidents. Attendance at critical incidents as Inspector (duty officer).”
The applicant claimed to have been injured due to “Accumulated exposure to trauma and stressful workplace incident involving management and lack of support.”
The applicant’s injury was stated to be major depression and PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).
The claim form referred to previous injuries on 25 March 2012 (“shooting incident”) and
29 April 2024 (“change to medications following similar Bondi police shooting on 13/04/2024”).
On 23 December 2024, the respondent’s insurer, EML NSW Ltd (EML) issued the applicant with a notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act).
EML disputed that the applicant had sustained a psychological injury. EML noted that liability had been accepted for a psychological injury, which had been diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder.
EML did not consider that the applicant’s previously accepted psychological condition ever completely resolved; and did not accept that the recent deterioration in the applicant’s condition represented a new and distinct injury that was separate to his ongoing condition.
EML advised that any entitlement the applicant had to weekly benefits, treatment expenses, and any other compensation for his psychological injury, would continue to be covered under his existing claim.
By letter dated 31 January 2025, the applicant’s solicitors requested on his behalf that EML review its decision.
On 14 February 2025, EML advised the applicant that its decision to dispute his claim had been maintained.
The applicant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) on
21 March 2025.
The applicant claimed to have sustained a disease injury, deemed to have occurred on
26 September 2024.
The applicant claimed weekly benefits from 26 September 2024, claiming that his actual earnings and comparable/probable earnings were $2,977.23 per week.
The respondent lodged its Reply on 14 April 2025.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The respondent stated that its defence was that liability had already been accepted for a psychological injury during the course of employment, including exposure to traumatic incidents and the stressful nature of the job.
The psychological injury had been diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder, which the respondent said had never resolved; and anything that occurred in 2024 did not represent a new or distinct injury, separate to the applicant’s ongoing condition.
The respondent maintained that the evidence was not satisfactory or adequate to make a determination on the terms sought by the applicant.
The respondent maintained that I would need to determine whether the incidents in 2012 and 2024 were frank injuries that played a part in the applicant’s condition. I would need to consider whether there was a s 4(a) or s 4(b)(i) (of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act)) type of injury. If I formed the view that the applicant’s injury was a disease, I would need to consider the correct deemed date of injury.
The respondent maintained I would need to look at whether the incident at Bondi Junction was sufficient to cause post-traumatic stress disorder.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The matter was listed for conciliation/arbitration hearing on 28 July 2025, by the MS Teams platform. Mr Hammond of counsel, instructed by Mr Gray, appeared for the applicant, who was present. Mr Gaitanis of counsel instructed by Ms Mou, appeared for the respondent. Ms “T” of EML also attended.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:
(a)    Application and attached documents;
(b)    Reply and attached documents, and
(c)    Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 22 July 2025, lodged by the respondent, and attached documents.

Oral evidence

There was no application to call oral evidence or cross-examine any witness.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Evidence of the applicant, Toby Austin

The applicant’s statement is dated 17 January 2025.
In October 2011, he was promoted to the rank of Inspector and transferred to the St Marys Local Area Command (LAC) as a uniformed duty officer. Given that he had been
non-operational for a number of years, he deliberately chose to go to a busy western Sydney command.
On 25 March 2012, he was involved in a police critical incident at Parramatta, in which he shot and killed Darren Neil. Neil was a long term violent drug addict who was on the run from the police.
Neil was armed with a knife and had carjacked and assaulted a number of people during the day leading up to the incident. He confronted Neil in a back corridor of the Parramatta Westfield Shopping Centre, following a pursuit from western Sydney.
Neil attacked him, armed with the knife. He discharged his firearm a number of times in self-defence, killing Neil almost instantly. Neil died while lying on top of him in the lift well floor.
He was heavily exposed to Neil’s blood and other bodily fluids. Neil was known to have had hepatitis C. He had Neil’s blood in his mouth, hair, face, eyes, fingernails, and most of his body.
On the night of the incident, he was directed to take a number of weeks off. This was to await the results of blood testing the day after the incident, and to have further testing that was required.
On 26 March 2012, Inspector Daryl Jobson completed a P902 – Notification of Injury, in which exposure to blood and bodily fluids was recorded as the injury.
He subsequently received medical advice that he had not contracted any diseases. Waiting for this result was significantly stressful for him and his family.
On 12 April 2012, he returned to full duty at St Marys LAC. He returned as soon as he could because he felt he could set an example, particularly for more junior officers, that you can recover from a critical incident, return to full duties, and continue your career.
During the following 12 months as a duty officer, he was exposed to further traumatic incidents and scenes. This included fatal traffic collisions, sometimes involving children, homicide, suicide by firearm, hanging, gassing, poisoning, and other methods. He attended many child deaths, including accidental, sudden infant death syndrome, and suicide.
He witnessed and was present at gruesome scenes, such as human beings being hit and dismembered by trains, decomposed bodies, and traumatised and injured members of the public. The smell of a decomposed body would never leave him. He witnessed the aftermath of serious domestic violence incidents, where women and children had been assaulted or murdered.
He attended critical incident scenes where police officers had been seriously injured or had seriously injured members of the public.
Towards late 2012, he started experiencing symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder. He became increasingly agitated, felt isolated, and found it hard to cope with his duties. He found himself increasingly stressed, depressed, anxious, angry, and teary for no apparent reason.
He noticed that situations at work, such as making decisions he would normally have no difficulty with, became increasingly difficult. He began to be overly self-conscious, and worried that people thought he was incompetent. His self-confidence diminished. He began to dread going to work in case he had to confront another violent offender.
These symptoms became so acute that he saw his doctor on 15 March 2013, when he was diagnosed with PTSD and placed on sick leave. He remained on long term sick leave under the care of his GP (general practitioner), Dr Walid Jamal, psychologist Megan Taylor, and psychiatrist Dr Terrance Lim. He was prescribed antidepressant and antipsychotic medications.
Towards late 2013, he began to recover to the point where he believed he could return to duty.
On 22 July 2013, he was transferred to Castle Hill LAC as a uniformed duty officer. He commenced on restricted non-operational duties.
On 25 December 2013, he was certified for pre-injury duties by his GP and the NSWPF psychologist.
Between the end of 2013 and early 2018, he was routinely exposed to significant traumatic incidents and scenes.
He was exposed to violence, both directly and indirectly, threats of violence, and arresting violent offenders, with the ever present threat that he would again be forced to shoot an offender. He was very fearful that if this was to occur, he would again become unwell and have to take time off work.
Some specific traumatic events included a five year old being stabbed to death by his mentally ill father; and a truck collision in which the young driver’s body parts were strewn all over the road and surrounding area.
He attended a train collision where a man had jumped in front of a train, resulting in decapitation and severing of other body parts, and exposure of his internal organs. He assisted the crime scene officers in photographing the deceased and reviewing the CCTV that captured the incident. This was extremely gruesome and distressing and would stay with him for a lifetime.
He attended an incident where an elderly man had suffered a heart attack in front of his family. He gave the patient CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) for a sustained period. He recalled (the man’s) ribs breaking and distinctly remembered a crunching noise and his family hysterical, sobbing.
Despite his efforts, the man was pronounced deceased sometime later on the floor. He felt extremely sad, as he could not help but liken it to a family member passing.
He attended a critical incident outside Hornsby Westfield. A police officer had shot a mentally ill man armed with a knife. When he arrived, it became apparent the officer had hit a number of bystanders.
There was blood all over the pavement. An elderly woman with a gunshot wound to her leg was bleeding profusely and screaming in pain. Another man had been shot and was more calm, but there was a significant amount of blood around him.
The incident had an immediate impact. He found it hard to control his emotions. He recalled sweating profusely, becoming shaky, and feeling overwhelmed. He left before his colleagues noticed. He felt hiding this was his only option as the NSWPF expected they would remain professional even in the face of traumatic and gruesome scenes. This was particularly the case, given his rank at the time.
He had delivered death messages for many years. He found this highly distressing, particularly regarding child deaths.
An event he would not forget was delivering a death message to the wife of a man killed in a car accident only kilometres from home. She saw him at the front door before he knocked, and he knew she knew why he was there. She collapsed and was inconsolable. She continually asked questions he could not answer, which seemed to cause her more distress.
Given his experience as a police prosecutor, he regularly reviewed coronial briefs of evidence. Police statements often described extremely distressing and graphic scenes. The briefs contained crime scene photographs that depicted deceased people, often in terrible circumstances.
He also reviewed child sexual assault and exploitation briefs of evidence. He attempted to minimise reviewing child pornography. Statements would often describe extremely disturbing and horrific things, which had an emotional impact on him.
As a duty officer at Castle Hill, he was responsible for managing officers with significant and serious mental health issues caused by exposure to repeated traumatic events. This often caused him distress.
He concluded the organisation did not take its officers’ mental health seriously. He witnessed countless officers repeatedly let down. This left him feeling helpless and dismayed that he could not help them.
He was required to communicate with and apply policies and procedures to very mentally unwell officers, knowing they could be adversely impacted. He was regularly distressed at the prospect of visiting and supporting officers who were unwell.
His exposure to the aforementioned incidents continued until early 2018, when he realised he needed a break from front line policing. His sense of duty was quickly being overtaken by increasing personal distress from years of exposure to terrible events and scenes.
He noticed a change in his home life. He had become short tempered and snappy to his kids and wife. They had noticed a change in him.
In April 2018 he successfully applied for a transfer to the Digital Technology Command, Parramatta Headquarters, as it was then known. This was very much prompted by the distress he was feeling, and provided an opportunity to work in an office, away from trauma.
His wife, Ricki, encouraged him to apply for this role, because she was aware his mental health was declining.
He was the staff officer to the then chief information and technology officer, Gordon Dunsford. For the following years, his role was to support Dunsford and the command to ensure the NSWPF had access to technology. This ranged from laptops and desktops to platforms such as Microsoft and SAP.
Around mid-2022, Assistant Commissioner Crandell was appointed commander of the new Technology Command. Given Crandell had a staff officer, he was displaced immediately. He noticed Crandell was a hands-on leader with what he would describe as an autocratic, coercive leadership style.
Crandell almost immediately asked him to review the Technology Command Operating Model. While he had no experience in technology operating models, he took on the challenge, given his substantive position had been filled. He genuinely feared being sent back to front line policing.
He remained part of the senior management team. He was part of the decision-making team, advising and supporting managers with major projects and programs, and the future of the command.
While Crandell was generally supportive, he found it difficult to interact with him. He regularly briefed him but found he vacillated between options and decisions and appeared at times to have short term memory loss.
Crandell often asked his opinion and asked the same question sometime later at other meetings. He put this down to the stress Crandell was under but found it difficult to understand his direction with clarity.
It became evident that Crandell was not well respected by the police executive. This first surfaced at a meeting with a Deputy Executive towards the end of 2023. The Deputy said words to the effect, “just keep an eye on him and try to keep him under control.”
He felt astonished and quite disturbed that such a senior officer would say that. He thought there was not a lot he could do, given Crandell was an Assistant Commissioner, and he was just an Inspector.
This caused significant stress that disrupted his sleep for several weeks. He realised it was going to be difficult to successfully deliver the project, given the view this senior officer had of Crandell.
There were several other incidents in which he, Crandell, and Suzie Mann, the Chief Technology Officer, were required to present to the Executive Team.
On one occasion, Crandell took the executive, including the Commissioner, through a presentation pack (the applicant) had prepared.
It was immediately obvious that the Commissioner and Deputies had significant disdain for Crandell. One Deputy Commissioner asked questions he considered were deliberately difficult, irrelevant, and obstructionist. At the end of the presentation, the Commissioner remarked she had not read the presentation and would have to do that and get back to them. This further suggested she did not care for Crandell, which Crandell inferred in a debrief following the meeting.
He felt frustrated and angry that he had put significant work into the presentation and project. He knew it was going to be extremely difficult to deliver the project successfully.
Over the following months, he experienced unnecessary roadblocks, bureaucracy, and delay. The pressure of continuing to try and deliver the project with what felt like no support was overwhelming and made going to work very difficult.
Throughout the following months, there were many times where he seriously considered taking sick leave, but felt it was the wrong thing to do. Given the pressure he was under from the commander, he usually worked 12 hours a day, five days a week. Crandell did not support inspectors taking time in lieu. The hours and pressure he felt were overwhelming. His disposition changed from a contributing enthusiastic member of the team to an angry detached avoider.
Staff members regularly came to him to vent their frustrations with Crandell. At first he provided advice, but over time this wore him down to the point where he avoided and diverted these conversations. He regularly closed his office door to prevent people coming in. This made him feel increasingly isolated and distressed.

On 13 April 2024, the Bondi Westfield Shopping Centre incident occurred. He was astonished at the similarities with the incident he was involved in in 2012. Throughout the following weeks he became increasingly distressed, not only by the events, but the fact that the officer involved would most likely later experience PTSD or similar illness.
He felt significant concern for (the officer). A number of friends and colleagues contacted him to check that he was OK, as they appreciated the similarities and were aware of his history.
Shortly after this, when he was feeling overwhelmed and distressed, he did not agree with a colleague on something. He felt himself losing control and becoming overwhelmingly angry. He stood and demanded his colleague leave his office and pointed to the door. His colleague was shocked but continued to argue the point. He raised his voice and said, “get the fuck out of my office.” He put that down to the pressure he was feeling. He had never behaved in the workplace like that.
Over the following months he became distant at home. He began isolating himself from the family. He watched mindless television for hours to avoid interaction. He withdrew from socialising and constantly made excuses not to be involved in events.
He could not cope with even minor everyday disagreements between his kids and his wife. He would either angrily yell and scream or isolate himself in his room and refuse to speak to anyone. He had gone from being involved with his kids and wife to withdrawing and being uninterested or unable to cope with anything at home.
He was not coping at all. He thought his kids and wife would walk away. He felt he deserved this. He lost all interest in maintaining their house and garden, and the house became untidy and overgrown.
He continued to work and tried to get through what he thought was just a passing decline in his mental health. He willed himself to get back on track but nothing he did seemed to help.
On 26 April 2024, his wife made an appointment with his GP as she told him she was extremely worried about him. She thought perhaps a review of his medications and a new psychologist could assist in getting his mood under control.
His doctor adjusted his medication and referred him to Dr Phillip Green.
In May 2023 [sic: 2024], a new Assistant Commissioner, Stacey Maloney, was appointed as the commander, after Crandell’s retirement. This involved merger of the Communications Services Command, of which she was the existing commander, and the Technology Command.
The command was renamed the Technology and Communication Services Command. At the time of the merger, he was acting commander of the newly created Technology Service Centre he had created as part of the new operating model.
Almost immediately he noticed he was being left out of important events and meetings. He was excluded from an overnight leadership event in May 2024, to which all other leaders and managers, including those of lower rank and experience, were invited. He expressed his frustration to his manager, Suzie Mann. She spoke with the commander’s staff officer, who said he had “forgotten” he was part of the senior leadership team.
In July 2024, he learnt he had not been successful in his application for a specialist commander’s position within the command he had applied for. He had established the position, written the role description, and spent a number of months setting up the structure.
The position had been won by the then Deputy Commissioner’s former staff officer and current staff officer to a member of the interview panel [sic]. The candidate did not have any of the required experience. This decision was extremely disappointing and reinforced that he was being isolated and was no longer valued as a member of the team.
Over the following months, he continued to be excluded without explanation from meetings involving the other commanders and directors. He had been part of those meetings for many years.
In mid-September 2024, he received from Maloney’s assistant an invitation to a senior management Christmas event. He accepted but then noticed the invitation had been rescinded almost immediately. He had access to his manager’s calendar and noticed the event was still on and he had been removed.
This caused significant distress and was consistent with how he was being treated. He sent an email to the assistant asking why he was removed from the meeting but did not receive a response.
Throughout August and September 2024, his feelings of anger, isolation, resentment, humiliation, distress, and a constant feeling of being overwhelmed, increased day by day. He became obsessed with the poor treatment he felt he had experienced, and the officers responsible, to the point where it consumed every waking hour, and [was] often in his dreams.
He ruminated obsessively over how he could be ostracised by the organisation he had dedicated his career to. Feelings of resentment distracted him all day. He expressed these feelings to his wife, placing a strain on their relationship.
He required Seroquel to fall and remain asleep. He regularly expressed to his close colleagues how he felt but felt more angry the more he talked about it, because he did not want to be a burden.
It became evident close to his last working day that he was starting to lose control of his anger, thoughts, and feelings, both at work and at home. He became paranoid that, given the executive’s obvious dislike for Crandell, he had been labelled as in his “camp” and deliberately stifled for [sic: from] being part of the new command and advancing by the new commander.
His wife noticed a significant change and remarked regularly that something was wrong with him. He tried to minimise how he was feeling to protect her and his children from the fact he was losing control.
On 26 September 2024, he went to work, sat in his office, and closed the door. He started to sweat profusely and became teary. Suzie Mann rang. He burst into tears. He was overwhelmed. He could not explain to her what was wrong, other than he just couldn’t cope. He told her he would see his GP. He changed and left. He couldn’t stop crying. Ricki picked him up and they went home.
The following day he saw his GP, Dr Nuwan (Dharmaratne). He diagnosed PTSD and completed a no capacity workers compensation certificate. Ricki spoke the same day with Chief Inspector Ormes, the Human Resources Manager at his command,
“Against Ricki’s opinion”, Ormes told her he had received advice there was no need for a new P902 (notification of injury) as it would be managed under the original injury in 2013.
He felt this was not correct, given the passage of time since the original injury, and the symptoms he described to his GP. He was not in an emotional state to argue this. He just needed some time off to recover.
Over the following months he attempted to recover at home. He continued to feel angry, disattached [sic] and hopeless. He struggled to get out of bed, due to the medication he was taking to help him sleep. His motivation diminished to the point where he could no longer go to the gym. Suicide occurred to him several times.
On 26 November 2024, Ricki told him his pay had dropped significantly. He had not had any notice as to why. He completely lost control and in Ricki and his daughter’s presence, he punched and kicked a wall. He smashed large holes in the wall with his fists and feet. He broke down on the floor with Ricki comforting him. He felt immediate pain in his right foot and noticed it starting to swell. Ricki gave him medication to calm down. He found it hard to stop crying.
This behaviour was completely inconsistent with his normal demeanour and calm disposition. He was highly embarrassed that his family and friends knew what happened. He was mortified that his daughter and wife witnessed the incident.
Ricki spoke on the same day with an officer in shared services regarding his pay. She was advised that because his illness had been attributed to his original PTSD diagnosis in 2013, he had exhausted the statutory recovery period. As a result, his pay had been reduced to the statutory rate. They realised the advice from Ormes was incorrect and inconsistent with the opinions of his GP and psychologist.
On the same day, he saw his GP. He provided a new certificate which specified PTSD and severe depression with date of injury of 26 September 2024.
On 27 November 2024, he received a phone call from “Chloe”, the case manager on the new claim he had made. He described to her the circumstances leading to him leaving work on
26 September 2024.
He told Chloe there was another open claim that had been erroneously attributed to the 2013 incident [sic]. She said she would speak with her colleagues and get back to him.
On 29 November 2024, Chloe called and told him she had spoken to her team leader, and they concluded the fresh injury described by Dr Nuwan was simply an exacerbation of the PTSD injury he suffered in 2013. He was confused as to how EML had come to that conclusion.
He asked Chloe if she had spoken to his GP and psychologist prior to the decision. She indicated she had not. He urged her to speak to them.
He followed this up with an email, the contents of which I will not repeat, other than that it stated:
“…I need to make it very clear to you now (a matter I will later rely on) that your (EML’s) arbitrary actions and decisions in regards to this claim to date continues to have a profound detrimental impact on my mental health and my family’s welfare.”
He understood Chloe spoke with Dr Green. She failed to speak with Dr Nuwan. He learnt this from Dr Nuwan.
On 2 December 2024, “Crystal”, a manager at EML, called him. She said she and Chloe had further considered the matter and determined the fresh claim would be treated as the same injury he suffered in 2013, and (they) would therefore consider the fresh claim as a notification only. He pointed out that his GP and psychologist were of a contrary view and asked her to reconsider.
He reiterated the distress the decision had caused him and his family, but she refused to change her mind.
He learnt through conversations with colleagues that EML represented to the NSWPF injury management team that it declined his claim on the basis he was seeking money, rather than the reasons in the workers compensation certificate and opinion of his psychologist and doctor.
Dealing with EML had further traumatised him. He thought about this constantly. They appeared to have little appreciation of the impact of their decision making. It was demeaning to have the EML employee refuse to accept the disclosure of a new injury, despite the medical evidence.
As a result of the trauma and treatment by NSWPF and EML, he was quick tempered, angry, and often felt worthless, hopeless, numb, and let down. His mood was consistently low and negative. He relied heavily on medication to sleep.
He had sought comfort in exercise but lacked motivation. He was highly embarrassed that he had to leave his position. He was significantly distressed that he had not been given the opportunity to deal with his situation and try to get back to the workplace.

Medical evidence

Hills Family General Practice

I do not intend to refer to every entry in the clinical records.
The records disclose that the applicant was being treated for major depression before the events in 2012.
On 26 March 2012, Dr Walid Jammal recorded that the applicant had been involved in a critical incident. He had shot and killed an assailant. The applicant was “coping fine for now”. He had been talking to the police counsellor about it and had appointments for further counselling.
On 28 March 2012, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant was stressed, felt he needed a few days off, and would be able to go back to work late next week. He was seeing the psychologist tomorrow.
On 2 April 2012, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant had not gone back to work. He was feeling flat, low, unmotivated and withdrawn. He was not thinking about the shooting. He was seeing Megan Taylor and had been seeing the police psychologist.
On 11 April 2012, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant was feeling a lot better. He was waking at 3am, “he feels otherwise ok.” There were no panic attacks or anxiety. The applicant was “really keen to go back to work.”
On 24 April 2012, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant was happy to go back to operational duties. He was feeling well. “Can have final WorkCover” and see his own psychologist if he needed.
On 24 October 2012, Dr Nicola Barker recorded that the applicant needed a script for Luvox. He had been on an increased dose since last year. He went through a breakdown last year and then had a critical incident. His mood had improved a lot in the last few months. He was doing well and would like to stay on his current dose.
On 13 March 2013, Dr Sarah Gani recorded that the applicant was requesting a certificate for time off work. He was not coping, really anxious and agitated.
It had been almost one year since the traumatic incident at work. The coronial enquiry kept being postponed and the applicant was not told why.
The applicant’s brother, his only sibling, died from an overdose in January while the applicant was overseas. The applicant had distanced himself to some extent. He felt terrible guilt at not having come back for the funeral.
The applicant’s mother had drug and alcohol issues and had struggled following the death of her son.
An issue had arisen in the applicant’s relationship with his wife. He overreacted and left the house, returning after a couple of hours. There was no violence, but he felt very angry. The applicant thought he had gone back to work too soon after the incident, wanting to set a good example.
Dr Gani recorded “depression – major” and “stress”.
On 15 March 2013, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant was unable to work. He was depressed and anxious. His post-traumatic stress had been getting worse. He was not coping at all with work. He was taking sick leave, but thinking about WorkCover, which Dr Jammal would support.
On 27 March 2013, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant was not feeling too bad. He had bursts of anxiety. He had anxiety regarding going back to work, and work-related issues. The coroner’s case had been set down for November.
On 10 April 2013, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant had had a flare up of his depression. He had a binge drinking episode and felt really bad and down about it. He felt slow and had low self-esteem.
On 12 April 2013, Dr Therese Roberts recorded that the applicant had significant distress and anxiety as a result of underlying chronic depression, and the exacerbating stressor of the shooting, the death of his brother, and ongoing illness of his mother.
The applicant gained some benefit from seeing Ms Taylor but was struggling with everything, Despite being back on full duties, he had lost confidence and worried about drawing, or not drawing, his weapon. He constantly thought about what happened, although there were no nightmares or flashbacks. He admitted to ETOH (alcohol) abuse at times.
On 8 May 2013, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant felt better overall. He had weaned off Luvox and was on Efexor. He had also seen Dr Lim and Efexor had been increased. He was seeing a psychologist and improving slowly. He had stopped drinking and was not using Seroquel much at all.
On 12 June 2013, Dr Jammal recorded that the brief of evidence had been served, which negatively affected the applicant. He was having good and bad days – “about 50/50”, but his wife disagreed.
The applicant was still having nightmares and anxiety. The thought of going back to work scared him. He was still seeing Megan Taylor and the psychiatrist. He was on 150mg Seroquel a day, which had helped. Overall, the applicant felt a little better, but his psychologist thought he was not ready to go back to work.
On 17 July 2013, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant was better in himself. They had proposed a return to work plan that was too fast. The applicant was still seeing a psychologist, sleeping better, and “alcohol – under control.”
On 21 August 2013, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant felt well but still had a lot of anxiety. He was still seeing the psychologist. The applicant was working two days a week, from 8am to 4pm. He felt he was coping. His sleep was disturbed, and he took Seroquel now and again.
On 4 September 2013, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant had been doing two days a week for six weeks. He found that very stressful. He lacked a lot of confidence and was critical of himself. He wanted to overachieve and felt he could not. He felt he could not cope if he had to increase to three days.
On 12 October 2013, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant had started to read the brief and meet with the barrister regarding the coronial investigation. He was doing two days a week and felt OK. He would like to increase to three days. The coronial matter started on
11 November, and the applicant was required to be at “work” all week. He was still seeing the psychologist and psychiatrist.
On 21 November 2013, Dr Jammal recorded that the coroner’s case went very well. The coroner was not critical. The applicant felt “completely and utterly relieved.”
The applicant wanted to try a month on full time hours, but not fully operational. He was still seeing the psychologist and psychiatrist. His moods and depression were stable.
On 23 December 2013, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant had been feeling well, working fulltime. He felt he wanted to go back to full operational duties. He was still seeing the psychologist and taking medications.
Dr Jammal noted the applicant would go back to pre-injury duties but “keep case open as he will be seeing the psychologist and psychiatrist.”
On 30 January 2014, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant had been well. The coronial report was extremely favourable. The applicant was feeling fine. He was still seeing the psychologist and psychiatrist. He was back to full operational duties. He needed a certificate every three months.
On 18 April 2014, Dr Jammal reported to EML.
Dr Jammal opined that the applicant suffered from anxiety and depression, reactive to a work-related incident.
Dr Jammal had not seen the applicant since January 2014, when his symptoms were markedly improved. He should hopefully continue to improve, although Dr Jammal was unable to provide a timeframe for cessation of treatment. The applicant was to continue to take medications and be reviewed by Dr Jammal and his psychologist.
On 8 August 2014, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant needed repeat scripts. He had been well but tired all the time. His mood had been fine, with no depression or anxiety. The applicant may need to drop back on Efexor as he had been on it for quite some time. He was keen to start dropping back.
Dr Jammal reported to EML on 27 September 2014.
The applicant continued to slowly improve. He was working. He had stopped seeing the psychiatrist but continued to see the psychologist. They were planning to start reducing his medications when Dr Jammal next saw him.
Dr Jammal opined that, given the long history of the applicant’s illness and past history, coming off medication would take a long time. The applicant was already making a good recovery and was back to full time work.
On 16 February 2015, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant attended for an updated WorkCover certificate. He continued to see the psychologist and take medication. There had been some stress at work. The commander had been investigated for bullying. The applicant’s mother had some problems again. He had been lethargic and flat. He was managing at work.
On 2 March 2015, Dr Jammal recorded that for the last 23 weeks the applicant had been flat and lethargic, with poor motivation. His mother was causing problems again. There had been a critical incident at work.
The applicant had fleeting suicidal thoughts. He had good support at home. He normally saw Dr Lim but had not made an appointment. He felt safe at work, where he had good support, and safe with his firearms. Work was stressful but he was dealing with it.

Dr Jammal referred the applicant to Dr Lim, and “to take a few days off work”.
On 7 March 2015, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant felt a little better. He thought general police duties were having an impact on him. He did not want to change. He had decided to not “give so much” and change his attitude to work. He did not take time off.
On 28 July 2015, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant’s mental state had been stable, and he would like to reduce his medications. He was to try reduction to 150mg for two months.
On 1 February 2016, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant needed an updated WorkCover certificate as he was claiming medications. He had been stable and seeing the psychologist. He had tried to wean off medications and got depressed and anxious.
On 13 June 2017, Dr Jammal recorded that the applicant was there for review. He had been well. He wanted to try and reduce the dose of Efexor.
On 1 June 2018, Dr Barker recorded that the applicant had been fit for work for a long time but the case was open as (EML) was still paying medication costs and a psychologist was available when needed.
The applicant had seen the psychologist twice recently. He had tried a few times to wean off medication but got symptoms again, with anxiety and depression.
The applicant was working full time with no restrictions. He needed to go back to the psychologist. His brother in law had a severe brain injury. He and his wife were not coping. Tension at home started to affect his work, with difficulty concentrating and hypervigilance.
The applicant had found the (psychology) sessions helpful. He felt much improved at work and home.
On 8 April 2019, Dr Donna Jenkins recorded that the applicant saw a psychologist intermittently. He had been on Efexor for a few years and tried to wean without success. He was very stressed and agreed he may need to revisit the psychologist.
On 21 February 2020, Dr Emily Hunter recorded that there were issues with discontinuation syndrome and recurrence of depression once Efexor ceased. There were no side effects. The applicant felt he would stay on it long term.
The applicant continued to be prescribed Efexor, with the doctors recording that he did not think he could wean off it.
On 14 February 2022, Dr Dharmaratne recorded that the applicant needed a new WorkCover certificate for a flare of PTSD symptoms, “occurs every few years.” The applicant had a new supervisory role at work. He had had sessions with (Ms Taylor) previously with good effect.
On 18 March 2022, Dr Dharmaratne recorded that the applicant was feeling anxious. Work was the main stressor. The applicant was seeing the psychologist, who had suggested reviewing his medications.
On 13 September 2022, Dr Barker recorded that the applicant’s dosage of Efexor had been increased about six months ago, which had improved his mood and functioning a lot. He felt his functioning was about 80% and could improve. He was wondering about increasing the dose.
On 23 September 2022, Dr Barker recorded that the applicant had increased his dosage of Efexor. He had tolerated it well for the first few days, but for the last four to five days had felt a bit flat and “headachy”. He had had this before when going up on dosage and it settled after a while.
On 11 October 2022, Dr Barker recorded that the applicant felt better “mood wise and anxiety wise” on the higher dose. Any side effects had settled. The applicant was still seeing Megan Taylor and last saw her in September.
On 14 February 2023, Dr Dharmaratne recorded that the applicant felt he had been struggling. He was feeling flat and not doing well with work. He had taken a week off and was seeing Megan Taylor. Dr Dharmaratne encouraged him to think about extra time off work.
On 12 January 2024, Dr Dharmaratne recorded that the applicant was away on leave. His mood was stable, “Supportive counselling”.
On 29 April 2024, Dr Dharmaratne recorded reduced dose of Efexor. The applicant was not doing well, could not sleep, and was not feeling connected to people. He felt paranoid. Things with his wife were difficult. He could not stop thinking about work.
The applicant was seeing the police psychologist tomorrow. The Bondi shooting had brought up a lot. This was a significant source of discomfort. The plan was to increase the applicant’s medication.
Dr Dharmaratne referred the applicant to psychologist Ms Caroline Moran.
Dr Dharmaratne advised Ms Moran that the applicant had a significant history of trauma exposure. Recent events had led to worsening symptoms. The applicant had been seeing another psychologist for about 10 years. They had tried a small medication reduction during the same time. The applicant was now back to his usual dose and was keen to try a new therapy approach.
On 6 June 2024, Dr Dharmaratne recorded that the applicant felt better after medication adjustment. He struggled with his mind telling him negative things, “imposter syndrome”. Work was busy and challenging but manageable.
On 26 September 2024, Dr Dharmaratne recorded that the applicant was feeling anxious about work, crying at work, and unable to cope with work demands, “No specific trigger identified.”
The applicant was now a staff officer. He was previously leading an area. He felt lost and had missed an opportunity in the previous area. His current role involved administrative support, leading a project. He was unable to manage the workload and was feeling overwhelmed. He was considering leaving the police force.
This was affecting the applicant’s home life. He was dreading work and was picked up from work by Ricki. He needed a break, he was unsure of the duration, and needed to reset.
The applicant was upset about missing a desired role, but it was not the main issue. He felt disengaged from work and the organisation. For the first time he was feeling unenthusiastic about the job.
The applicant had persisted despite challenges, but this week had been particularly bad, and he lost control today. The applicant was seeing psychologist Phil Green, covered by WorkCover.
The applicant was waking at 3am, thinking about work constantly. No single incident had caused the distress. There was no change in his medications. He was considering seeing a psychiatrist for medication review.
Dr Dharmaratne issued the applicant with a WorkCover certificate for time off, with a review in two weeks.
On 10 October 2024, Dr Dharmaratne recorded that the applicant was constantly thinking about work, even at home and during sleep. He felt flat and down when idle. He was obsessing over work and unable to cope with his current job expectations. He was recently passed over for a promotion, leading to feelings of humiliation and loss. He was working under a supportive boss but still feeling overwhelmed.
Intrusive thoughts about work were affecting the applicant’s mood and daily functioning. He had a history of significant mental issues, including PTSD. He felt “extraordinary” [sic] by management, contributing to his current mental state. The applicant’s family noticed changes in his mood and behaviour.
Dr Dharmaratne referred the applicant to Dr Gordana Jovanova.
The referral noted that the applicant had presented for review of exacerbation of PTSD and depressive symptoms. He was involved in a critical incident in 2012 and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
The applicant had managed his symptoms through regular psychology and medications. He had recently had a significant exacerbation of symptoms, including rumination, mood lability, over-responsiveness to normally innocuous stimuli, sleep disturbance, excessive feelings of guilt, and low self-esteem. This appeared to be directly related to change in work circumstances and workload.
The applicant had had to restart Quetiapine to help with sleep. He continued on desvenlafaxine.
Dr Dharmaratne also responded to a questionnaire from EML on 10 October 2024.
Dr Dharmaratne opined that the applicant had sustained an aggravation due to the nature and conditions of his current employment. His reason was that the applicant had symptoms of rumination, low mood [and] self-esteem which occurred after a change in work circumstances and increased workload.
The date of the recurrence of symptoms was recorded as August 2024 – “change in work position and role”. The applicant had completed a multimerger project. He felt the organisation had not been supportive.
Dr Dharmaratne opined that the applicant’s post-traumatic stress disorder had not resolved. It had been managed through therapy and medication.
The applicant’s current symptoms included rumination related to work, mood lability, frustration and anger outbursts, excessive guilt, and hypervigilance. It was possible that any police related matters may potentially act as a trigger for further aggravation or recurrence.
On 5 November 2024, Dr Dharmaratne recorded “PTSD and work-related stress”. The applicant was struggling with day to day activities, feeling low, and ruminating on work-related incidents. He felt isolated and worthless, with a tendency to avoid hostility.
The applicant was sleeping OK but had vivid, hostile dreams about former colleagues. He felt like a fraud, and was unable to handle hostility at home, impacting family dynamics.
On 26 November 2024, Dr Dharmaratne recorded a history of PTSD since April 2013, exacerbated by recent events. The applicant was experiencing severe emotional distress, crying at home, and feeling unsupported.
The applicant had had an adverse reaction to workplace stressors and bureaucratic issues related to WorkCover claims. He denied wanting to be hospitalised, despite severe symptoms.
The applicant felt overwhelmed and unsupported by the organisation and colleagues. There was a recent wage cut without prior notice, adding to the stress.
The applicant had a history of Hepatitis C and HIV tests, with no counselling.
The reason for the visit was recorded as PTSD and depression, with a plan to lodge a new WorkCover claim for these conditions, separate from the 2012 incident, and document the date of injury as 24 April 2024. It would “include previous PTSD from 2012 and recent exacerbation due to workplace stressors”.
On 6 December 2024, Dr Dharmaratne recorded that the applicant had broken his foot kicking a wall. There was a history of anger issues leading to the incident. The applicant was embarrassed about the incident, which had been witnessed by family members.
The applicant had ongoing issues with work-related injuries and claims. There was significant stress “due to work-related injury claims and legal battles.”
On 20 December 2024, Dr Dharmaratne recorded that the applicant’s wife had submitted a new claim, and he was awaiting a decision from EML. There were concerns about the interaction between the 2012 claim and the new claim.
Dr Dharmaratne reported to EML on 2 January 2025.
Dr Dharmaratne diagnosed the applicant with major depression and complex post-traumatic stress disorder.
The applicant reported symptoms of pervasively low mood, anhedonia, insomnia, low self-esteem, excessive guilt, tiredness, and suicidal ideation without intent. Post-traumatic stress symptoms included recurrent intrusive thoughts related to trauma, hypervigilance, avoidance of triggers, and easy irritability.
The applicant had a history of post-traumatic stress disorder related to a work incident over a decade ago. He had had persistent low to moderate symptoms since that time, but was managing this with medication and therapy, and attending full duties at work. The applicant described his post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms significantly escalated after the
13 April 2024 Bondi stabbing incident.
The applicant also described significantly increased work stressors in the time leading up to and following [the Bondi incident]. He felt unsupported and let down with regard to matters relating to the project/s he was working on. These factors were major issues in the development of symptoms of depression.
Dr Dharmaratne believed the applicant was genuine in his description of events and causes. He carried significant shame with regard to his mental health. This was likely to have led to him minimising the impact of his current job. His interactions with work and the compensation process had added further to the decline in his mental health.
Dr Dharmaratne opined that the applicant had “certainly” had an exacerbation of complex post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. However, he had also sustained a new psychological injury in the form of major depression directly relating to his work circumstances.
On 13 February 2025, Dr Dharmaratne recorded there were issues with the psychologist, who was pressuring the applicant to seek work and return to the police force, causing significant distress. The applicant felt physically sick about returning to police work.
The applicant had been impacted by a colleague’s suicide, causing anger towards the police force. He was certain about not returning to police work.
There was family tension involving the applicant’s son. The applicant distanced himself when he was angry, “which is not ideal”.
On 24 February 2025, Dr Dharmaratne referred the applicant to Ms Emily Kwok. The applicant presented with symptoms of complex post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. His therapist was leaving the practice, and he was looking to engage with another.
On 13 March 2025, Dr Dharmaratne recorded that the applicant had low mood and suicidal thoughts. He felt flat and low, without identifiable triggers. He was struggling to get out of bed, trying to stay busy with home activities and gym.
The applicant had no current suicidal ideation or planning, but was experiencing thoughts of how, without planning. Safety planning was discussed.
On 8 May 2025, Dr Dharmaratne recorded that the applicant was seeing the psychologist every two weeks. A psychiatrist review was scheduled for next week.
The applicant had anxiety. He was ruminating about work, police matters, and individuals. He had sleep difficulties and was waking tired. He was struggling with decision making regarding return to work.

Hills District Allied Health (Megan Taylor, psychologist)

The records are handwritten and somewhat difficult to read. Some are also not signed, but it is apparent the entries were made by Ms Taylor. I do not intend to refer to every entry in the records.
On 22 March 2012, Ms Taylor recorded that the applicant had high levels of anxiety and agitation, sleep disturbance, and was nauseous when anxious. The applicant had withdrawn from his family, leading to guilty feelings and negative beliefs about his capacity as a father/husband.
There was a family history of substance abuse. The applicant was torn between limiting contact and being a “good son.” He felt guilt regarding “imposter syndrome” as a police officer and father, and frequently questioned his capabilities.
On 29 March 2012, the applicant described his involvement in a critical incident on
25 March 2012. The applicant was shocked and replaying the incident – “guy standing over him.” He feared for his life and the safety of the public in a public place.
The applicant had since ruminated about what could have happened. He re-lived the realisation that he was alone with no back-up nearby.
The applicant had heightened anxiety in response to “how close it was”. He ruminated about injury, death, and family. His senses were heightened, and he was hypervigilant. He felt fatigue and numbness at times. There were no thoughts of self-harm. He was still feeling shocked and on autopilot.
On 30 April 2012, Ms Taylor recorded that the applicant had requested an earlier appointment.
Ms Taylor noted tearfulness and sadness. The applicant was feeling dysregulated much of the time. He had heightened anxiety and was trying to keep his distress from his family. He was ruminating over the incident and projecting its potential consequences.
On 8 May 2012, the applicant was more stable and less tearful. There was ongoing anxious rumination and poor sleep.
On 31 May 2012, Ms Taylor recorded that the applicant’s anxiety remained heightened. He was trying to exercise to moderate anxiety. There was ongoing withdrawal from his family.
On 5 June 2012, Ms Taylor reported that the applicant had been referred in August 2011 for treatment of depressive disorder and co-morbid generalised anxiety disorder.
The applicant had made good progress but experienced a recent challenge with involvement in a critical incident that had exacerbated his anxiety.
On 21 July 2012, the applicant was more stable. There were some ruminations following viewing the footage of the incident. The applicant felt affirmed in making the right call under pressure.
On 22 September 2012, Ms Taylor recorded some “usual” flashbacks to the shooting incident. The applicant’s sleep was sporadic, his mood labile, and his motivation erratic.
On 20 November 2012, Ms Taylor recorded “as at last session.” There was ongoing “imposter syndrome”.
On 2 February 2013, the applicant presented with deteriorating mood and heightened anxiety. There was loss of patience with his family, which led to avoidance and guilt. Stress regarding his mother led to more guilt.
On 9 April 2013, the applicant was feeling hopeless [it is apparent from the records that this was after the death of his brother]. The applicant had suicidal ideation but no plan.
On 9 May 2013, the applicant had increased anxiety, but nil thoughts of self-harm. His mood was labile. He was feeling overwhelmed by limited interactions.
On 31 October 2013, the applicant had increased anxiety with the approach of the inquest. He had no particular concerns and was feeling confident after meeting the barrister. He was just feeling a generally higher level of arousal.
The applicant had increased to three eight hour shifts. He was managing OK. There were some periods of low confidence.
On 11 November 2013, the applicant had debriefed about the hearing. He had heightened anxiety. He felt reasonably confident with his responses, “Triggered and relieved”.
On 14 February 2015, the applicant had been reasonably stable over the past few months. He was seeking “top up”. He was suffering low confidence in his work persona, second guessing his value and worth. He was frustrated by ups and downs and unable to get sustained traction on mood management.
On 3 March 2015, the applicant was feeling low, agitated and wanting to avoid work and family. He had a feeling of impending doom. There was stress at work over an investigation of a colleague. Managing office politics and personalities felt draining.
The applicant had fleeting images of self-harm, but no plan or desire to follow through. This appeared to be anxiety related. The trigger was a work investigation. There had been a recent police incident involving the shooting of a young woman by a constable.
On 28 April 2015, the applicant was triggered by hearing about other police incidents. He saw thoughts of self-harm as an escape “fantasy”, not a plan.
The applicant was continuing to maintain an outward appearance of high-level functioning, despite feelings of threat, shame, and fear. He struggled with self-acceptance.
On 23 January 2016, the applicant had had a sustained period of stable mood since his last session in May 2015.
The applicant had had some lability recently, disturbed sleep, and had withdrawn from family interactions. He had anxious rumination, “triggering back to event at times – stories of other police officers”.
On 28 February 2016, the applicant had some improved stability. He had bouts of a sense of “impending doom”, with hypervigilance and agitation at times.
On 8 December 2016, it was the applicant’s first appointment in 10 months. He reported a stable mood and manageable anxiety. This was a maintenance session. There was increased stress at home, and work demands. The applicant had identified the need to debrief.
The applicant was next seen on 5 April 2018. He reported stability of mood and anxiety over this period, despite work and family stress. The applicant had effectively implemented self-management. He had some bouts of negative self-belief in all aspects of his life.

The applicant had been feeling heightened anxiety over the past few weeks. There was not one significant trigger. He was seeking early intervention to mitigate its progression.
On 22 May 2018, the applicant had a labile mood and anxiety. On some days he was more able to apply techniques.
On 27 November 2018, the applicant had had “ups and downs” over the last six months. He felt the need for a pre-emptive session before “the wheels fall off”. He had noticed heightened anxiety and sleep disturbance.
On 6 December 2018, the applicant referred to the triggering nature of the Christmas period. Family demands led to increased irritability and disruption to routine.
On 17 February 2022, the applicant described the Christmas/summer holiday period as presenting challenges with family commitments. His mood was labile, with unpredictable fluctuations. He was hypervigilant to criticism. He had low periods and poor sleep at times. They discussed the need for a review and possible adjustment of his medications.
On 3 March 2022, ongoing agitation and a planned review with a psychiatrist were discussed.
On (?) 12 April 2022 (the date is obscured), the applicant’s mood was improved, with less agitation, following medication adjustment. He had increased optimism and improved tolerance. They agreed regular maintenance appointments were indicated.
On 19 May 2022, there was a notation of kids and work stress, and negative ruminations. The applicant was not always aligned with Ricki’s approach to parenting. The applicant had no suicidal ideation and “meds going well.”
On 12 July 2022, the applicant had noted moments of self-criticism and triggers. Uncertainty, in work and home situations, was a trigger.
On 11 August 2022, the applicant was anxious and stressed about his daughter’s school and friendship issues. He identified with her anxiety. At times he struggled to regulate for her.
On 14 December 2022, the applicant was feeling quite dysregulated at times. The festive season was triggering. He was concerned about the pressure his daughter was putting on herself. He had low mood and hopelessness, fuelled by negative judgment and self-talk.
On 1 February 2023, the applicant referred to the challenges of engaging with his family over Christmas – “avoidance and some withdrawal”. His mood was labile and sleep variable.
On 6 February 2023, the applicant reported small progress moments with family communication. He was torn between trying to engage, which led to feeling frustrated, and avoiding, which led to feeling guilty.
On 28 March 2023, the applicant had slightly improved. There was better communication with his partner and the children were settled. They discussed issues with work.
On 9 May 2023, the applicant had improved, compared to his last visit. He had had some success with arousal management with exercise.
On 5 October 2023, the applicant had heightened anxiety and agitation – “work stress”. he was intolerant of [illegible]. He had self-doubt. He felt that engagement with his partner required more emotional capacity than he could muster.
On 6 February 2024, the applicant had a low mood, “short fuse”, and was feeling intolerant of workplace dynamics. He was avoidant at home.
On 21 February 2024, the applicant was aware of unhelpful self-talk but fell into automatic patterns at times of stress. He had a feeling of fatigue and low motivation.
On 30 April 2024, the applicant reported ongoing anxious rumination, although it was slightly less intense. Work frustration was ongoing. He was frustrated by communication blocks in his relationship.

Dr Terrance Lim – consultant psychiatrist

Dr Lim reported to Dr Roberts on 30 April 2013.
Dr Lim recorded that the applicant had had to shoot a knife wielding aggressor and had been plagued with flashbacks and memory of the incident, as well as the man taking his last breath.
The applicant experienced growing irritability and worsening depression and admitted to binge drinking about once a month. His mood worsened following the death of his brother and a family friend. This had triggered other problems in his family.
The applicant had been seeing a psychologist for about two years and had been making a lot of headway. He had also been taking antidepressants for about 15 years.
The applicant had never been exposed to particularly traumatic events until the event last year. He was keen on going back to work and recognised the need to do this gradually. He was conscious that the inquest would be in November, which would be particularly stressful.
Dr Lim opined that the applicant had symptoms of worsening major depression and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. There had also been a series of other psychosocial problems regarding his family.
The applicant’s provisional diagnoses were major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and alcohol abuse.
Dr Lim suggested an increase in the applicant’s dose of Efexor. The applicant was keen to continue seeing his psychologist, but Dr Lim suggested he also enrol in a mood and anxiety disorder day program.
On 28 May 2013, Dr Lim reported that the applicant had improved somewhat in terms of depression and anxiety. He still had episodes where he lost his temper with his family or had to remove himself. He had been more stressed recently after reviewing the brief of evidence of the upcoming inquest.
The applicant was thinking of going back to work, and was happy to consider doing this gradually, which Dr Lim thought was sensible. He had also advised the applicant that going back to front line policing would not be a good idea for the immediate future.
Dr Lim advised that the applicant was ready to work one day a week in restricted duties. This could be gradually increased over the next six months until he resumed his pre-injury work.
On 29 January 2014, Dr Lim reported that the coroner made a very favourable assessment of the applicant's actions.
The applicant’s mood and anxiety levels had been stable, and he had begun shooting again without problems. He had been returned to full operational duties and was looking forward to the future. He remained on Efexor and used Seroquel sparingly if he had difficulty sleeping. With this regime, he felt confident in managing his demanding work into the future.
Dr Lim was happy with the applicant’s progress and they agreed the applicant did not need to see him again in the near future.
On 3 March 2015, Dr Lim reported that over the last month the applicant’s depression had relapsed. This had been affecting his ability to work and his relationships. Most significant was the fact that the applicant had returned to front line policing and been exposed to traumatic events. He was also verbally abused by a member of the public who filmed and put it on social media with abusive commentary.
Dr Lim opined that medication would not result in significant improvement and the applicant’s occupation was directly contributing to his ongoing relapses of depression. Whilst not meeting the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder per se, the applicant certainly had major depressive symptoms related to his work.
Dr Lim had suggested the applicant have a month off work to think about his future.

Dr Gordana Jovanova – consultant psychiatrist and psychotherapist

Dr Jovanova reported first on 6 October 2024 (the report is incorrectly dated
6 October 2022).
Dr Jovanova recorded a history that the applicant’s last day of work was 26 September 2024. He reported that his current symptoms were related to recent events at work, and in 2012 he was involved in an incident that was similar to the 2024 Bondi Junction incident. He felt frustrated that his symptoms were attributed to the incident in 2012.
The applicant said that since May 2024, he had been ostracised, made to feel unwanted, excluded from important meetings/communications/team building events, his work was not recognised, and his efforts were dismissed. Others were commended for his work. When he applied for a new role, it was given to a colleague with less [sic] skills.
These events made the applicant “very angry”, and they gradually affected his mood.
On 24 September 2024, the applicant felt overwhelmed by the way he was treated and consulted Dr Dharmaratne. The applicant felt he was poorly treated at work but loved his work and felt conflicted to call his treatment “bullying”.
The applicant felt frustrated that “WC” attributed his current symptoms to his injury from 2012. He reported that he recovered to his full working capacity and between 2013 and September 2024, he had worked without any restrictions.
Dr Jovanova recorded that since May 2024 the applicant’s mood had dramatically deteriorated, and it was “good and normal” at the beginning of 2024. Since May 2024 he had felt irritable and described his mood as “terrible”, low and irritable. He reported anhedonia, impaired memory and concentration, and low energy levels. His sleep had been poor and since September he had been using Quetiapine. His weight had increased.
The applicant told Dr Jovanova about injuring his foot by kicking a wall. He felt ashamed that his daughter had witnessed this. His mood had negatively affected all his relationships, causing strain with his wife. His wife was supportive and did not want him to return to work.
Since his poor treatment at work started in mid-2024, the applicant had had fleeting ideas of suicide. He repeatedly told Dr Jovanova he never had a plan and had not attempted self-harm.
Dr Jovanova recorded that between 2012 and 2014, the applicant saw Dr Lim a few times and saw a psychologist. He was treated with various medications. Over recent months, he had been treated by a psychologist at Castle Hill and reportedly diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder related to 2024 work issues.
The applicant reported that the Bondi Junction incident had reminded him of his experiences, but his current symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder were directly related to the management issues. His post-traumatic stress symptoms had been in remission since 2013, when he returned to full-time unrestricted work.
“This happens to a man who has over 27 years of service, who loves his work, who prides himself for being strong both mentally and physically and…his wife is also his colleague.” The applicant had had a traumatic upbringing and had always seen himself as strong and “a protector” for his family and the community.
Dr Jovanova opined that the applicant’s symptoms were best understood in the context of post-traumatic stress disorder related to bullying at work in 2024. He had a history of well-managed post-traumatic stress disorder, reportedly in long-term remission.
On 4 February 2025, Dr Jovanova reported that the applicant had presented with his wife.
The applicant’s mood had remained low and irritable, and he reported preoccupation with how he was treated at work in 2024.
Ricki reported that she observed in 2024 that the applicant “noticeably changed”. He became obsessed with work, worked excessively long hours, was excessively irritable over small things, and to hide his low mood, would lock himself in a bedroom and not talk. This was out of character.
Ricki was aware that the applicant was unjustly “publicly shamed”, and from being a confident person he had lost confidence. She had checked with him a few times if she should be worried about suicide, but he had never attempted deliberate self-harm.
Ricki denied “DV” (domestic violence). She and the applicant attended six sessions of couple’s therapy in May 2025. The applicant was particularly offended that EML insisted his current post-traumatic stress symptoms were related to the 2012 incident. She “reiterated that in 2013 her husband returned to his full-time unrestricted duties and in 2020 he finished a law degree and was promoted.” (Emphasis in original).
Dr Jovanova made several requests of Dr Dharmaratne for the applicant’s past medical investigations and letters related to his past treatment. On 13 February 2025, he provided her with correspondence from the applicant’s previous psychiatrist and his most recent “bloods”. He did not have any correspondence from the applicant’s psychologist.

Ms Emily Kwok - psychologist

Ms Kwok reported to the respondent on 14 April 2025.
Ms Kwok opined that the applicant’s symptoms met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder.
The applicant reported constant rumination about his employment. He also reported low moods and anxiousness on most days. His distress intensified when he thought about returning to work with the police force.
Whereas the applicant’s anxiety was initially specific to work-related issues, it appeared that it had generalised into other areas of his life. He presented with sleep disturbance on most days. He stated that he struggled with social interactions and relied on his wife to handle most of his affairs.
The applicant reported having been exposed to multiple traumatic events during around 28 years with NSWPF. By September 2024, he was unable to function at work and had not returned to work.
Treatment was focused on addressing the applicant’s post-traumatic stress disorder, including co-morbid anxiety and depression.

SUBMISSIONS

The parties’ submissions have been recorded, and a transcript is available. I will therefore summarise the main points.

Applicant

The applicant sought a finding that he sustained an injury pursuant to either s 4(b)(i) or 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act, arising out of his service as a police officer. He submitted there was “a path to both conclusions.”
The applicant submitted the respondent was asking me to ignore his long police career following the incident in 2012. In considering the applicant’s evidence, which was not disputed by other evidence, it was improbable on a factual, legal or medical basis that those subsequent events did not either exacerbate the post-traumatic stress disorder injury that was extant in 2012 or cause further injury.
The applicant referred to the evidence of Dr Dharmaratne, which he submitted supported that he had an exacerbation of complex post-traumatic stress symptoms, and sustained a new psychological injury in the form of a major depression directly related to his current work circumstances.
The applicant also relied on the evidence of Dr Kwok. He submitted the original incident in 2012, his 28 year career, with further exposure to trauma, and management issues in the last couple of years of employment, were all causative events.
The applicant conceded that Dr Dharmaratne had focused on 2012 and the management issues, with little about the interim events. However, he submitted there was no opinion from a medical expert stating that any of the events after the original incident was not causative of psychological injury.
The applicant submitted therefore it was difficult to see on what basis I would not be satisfied that there was an injury occurring as a result of the applicant’s employment “from beginning to end”.
The applicant conceded there was a significant incident in 2012. However, even the respondent’s use of that date of injury in the applicant’s original claim did not take into account the events that occurred immediately after the event in 2012, including the applicant giving evidence to the coronial inquiry.
The applicant relied on the decision in Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch[1] and its reference to “a four step process.” The aggravation of the applicant’s disease occurred on
[1] [1964] HCA 34; (1964) 110 CLR 626 (Semlitch).
26 September 2024, when he reported off work. That is when his incapacity arose and why that date was chosen.
The applicant submitted that a similar argument arose in NSW Police Force v Gurnhill.[2]
[2] [2014] NSWWCCPD 12 (Gurnhill).
The applicant submitted that in Pickavance v NSW Police Force[3], Arbitrator Peacock, as she then was, dealt with a similar submission to that of the respondent in this case, that is to ignore the applicant’s career post the incident in March 2012, and “you simply can’t do that.”
[3] [2011] NSWWCC 149.
In reply, the applicant submitted the GPs’ records contain references to further incidents and stress at work, which countered the respondent’s submission that the applicant was simply having treatment for what happened in 2012.
The applicant submitted he “gets to where he needs to get to”, either by way of a new injury pursuant to s 4(b)(i), or the exacerbation of injury.
The applicant submitted that, pursuant to s 15, he can have two dates of injury. Post 2012/2013, the applicant was in employment to the nature of which the disease was due. In those circumstances, I would use the deeming provision to find a date of injury at the date of incapacity in 2024.
As regards the “management issues”, the applicant submitted he had given detailed evidence as to what occurred and its effects, consistent with the medical evidence. There was no evidence from the other persons involved, and the applicant submitted I would accept his evidence.

Respondent

The respondent submitted that liability was accepted for a psychological injury due to exposure to traumatic incidents, and that injury was diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder. The insurer did not consider that the psychological condition ever completely resolved and that was borne out by the evidence. There was no acceptance that this represented a new or distinct injury, separate to the ongoing condition.
The respondent submitted the applicant’s condition now is the condition he had as from 2012. It was a continuation of that condition, not a new condition. It was essentially a condition that never resolved, and the applicant, notwithstanding, continued working, but under some sufferance.
The respondent referred to the clinical records. It submitted there was continuing treatment from 2013 onwards, and this had been a waxing and waning condition since 2012.
The respondent submitted all the evidence suggested that the psychological injury the applicant had had since 2012 had remained throughout. It was arguable that there had even been an aggravation or exacerbation.
While the respondent conceded this is a legal issue, it submitted that Dr Dharmaratne had, in a certificate of capacity dated 5 November 2024, diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and the date of injury was 25 March 2012. The doctor’s view was that the date of injury was 25 March 2012.
The respondent submitted I would exercise caution in making findings about bullying at the workplace. The applicant is a Chief Inspector; the complaints were not supported anywhere else; and they did not appear to be of real significance.
The respondent referred to Dr Dharmaratne’s response to EML’s questionnaire dated
10 October 2024. He did not “tick the box” to say there was a new incident, event, or factor as an exacerbation. He ticked that it was an aggravation due to the nature and conditions of the applicant’s current employment. He said post-traumatic stress disorder did not resolve but was managed through therapy and medication. He then diagnosed a new psychological injury of major depression directly related to the applicant’s current work circumstances.
The respondent submitted there was no report from an independent medical examiner to give some guidance as to the diagnosis of an injury, and the onus was on the applicant. The applicant had not discharged his onus.
The respondent submitted Dr Jovanova did not conclude that the applicant’s symptoms were attributable to events in 2024. Notwithstanding an invitation by the applicant and his wife to suggest this was a new injury, the most that Dr Jovanova said was that she was “under the initial impression…” There was nothing decisive or conclusive
The respondent submitted Dr Jovanova had advocated for the applicant, “she’s stepped into the arena”. However, her initial impression was that the applicant had post-traumatic stress disorder related to bullying at work in 2024 and he had a history of well-managed post-traumatic stress disorder, reportedly in long-term remission, related to the incident in 2012.

The respondent submitted I would not accept that diagnosis. The evidence regarding bullying is inadequate or insufficient. It did not fulfil the criteria under DSM-5 for post-traumatic stress disorder. It was unclear whether the Bondi incident would meet criteria A, when the applicant was not involved in it.
The respondent submitted there seemed to be a commonplace view that this was a disease, but there were two major incidents, according to the applicant, the shooting in 2012 and the event in April 2024 at Bondi.
The respondent referred to Gurnhill and submitted that before a finding could be made that the applicant had suffered an aggravation injury under s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act, it was necessary to establish that he suffered from a disease – Semlitch.
The respondent submitted I would need to determine whether any part of these events was a frank injury. If it was, I would need to consider whether there was a sudden or identifiable physiological change.
The respondent submitted the applicant’s symptoms developed over time, and perhaps this could be considered a s 4(b)(i) injury, rather than a s 4(a) personal injury. That was what transpired in Gurnhill. The respondent submitted that was available to me but it did not say this was a new injury.
The respondent submitted the correct deemed date of injury was the first date of incapacity. The respondent referred to Member Strachan’s decision in Shlimon v Steric Pty Ltd[4].
[4] [2025] NSWPIC 252 (Shlimon).
The respondent submitted there had been no new injury. This was a continuation of an existing condition, and the first date of incapacity was the deemed date of incapacity.

SUMMARY

Section 4 of the 1987 Act, as it applies to the applicant, who is an “exempt worker”, provides:

“Definition of "injury"
In this Act—

injury:
(a) means personal injury arising out of or in the course of employment,
(b) includes:
(i) a disease which is contracted by a worker in the course of employment and to which the employment was a contributing factor, and
(ii) the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of any disease, where the employment was a contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration, and
(c) does not include (except in the case of a worker employed in or about a mine) a dust disease, as defined by the Workers’ Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942, or the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a dust disease, as so defined.”

Firstly, I accept that the applicant’s injury is a disease injury.
In Semlitch, Kitto J said (at 632):
“In its ordinary meaning ‘disease’ is a word of very wide import, comprehending any form of illness, and there is no reason I can see for reading it in the present context as not extending to mental illness.”
Semlitch was applied by the Court of Appeal in Cook v Midpart Pty Ltd t/as McDonalds Foster.[5]
[5] [2008] NSWCA 151 (Cook).
In Cook, the Court of Appeal referred to cases such as Semlitch and Commissioner for Railways v Bain[6].
[6] [1965] HCA 5; (1965) 112 CLR 246 (Bain).
In Bain, Windeyer J said (at 272):
“The word ‘disease’ seems to me apt to describe any abnormal physical or mental condition that is not purely transient…”
The Court of Appeal said in Cook (at [38]-[39]:
“…The notion of disease has also been the subject of discussion in many cases: see for example Darling Island Stevedoring & Lighterage Co Ltd v Hussey; Commissioner for Railways v Bain; Favelle Mort Ltd v Murray; MGH Plastics v Zickar; and Zickar v MGH Plastics.
Whilst it is important to recognise the need to understand the phrase [referring to aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration] as a whole, the central concept being considered is disease. In Hussey, Dixon CJ said at 496 that the word ‘covers what would ordinarily be regarded as a pathological condition continuing to operate according to its pathological nature’. In Favelle Mort, Barwick CJ at 587 referred to a ‘morbid condition of the body’. These expressions are apt to encompass the whole medical and physical condition, including the effect or manifestation of symptoms.” (Citations omitted).
Deputy President Roche said in Gurnhill (at [72]) that whether a psychological condition is classified as a personal injury or a disease depends on the evidence in each case. “For it to be found that a worker with a psychological condition has received a personal injury, it is necessary that the events complained of had a physiological effect on the worker…More specifically, the High Court has described a personal injury under s 4(a) as a ‘sudden or identifiable physiological change’…”
The applicant’s evidence is that his injury was initially recorded as exposure to blood and bodily fluids. He returned to full duty on 12 April 2012. Towards late 2012, he started to experience symptoms that made it hard to cope with his duties. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in March 2013.
The clinical records confirm that in March 2013, the applicant was anxious, agitated, and not coping. The coronial enquiry kept being postponed.
In my view, the applicant’s condition was a “pathological condition” that “continued to operate according to its pathological nature”. He did not suffer a “sudden or identifiable physiological change”. The deemed date of injury chosen was the date of the critical incident, that is
25 March 2012, but the applicant’s condition continued to develop after that date, including when he was required to give evidence to the coronial enquiry.
There was also no “sudden or identifiable physiological change” at the time of the incident at Bondi Junction in April 2024. The applicant’s evidence is that he became increasingly distressed in the weeks following this incident. His GP recorded that it had “brought up a lot”.
The applicant relied on both ss 4(b)(i) and 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act, submitting there was a path to both conclusions.
In my view, the evidence suggests that, if the applicant has sustained injury, the injury falls within s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act.
In discussing s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act, I will use the term “aggravation” for convenience.
The applicant referred to the “four step process” in Semlitch.
Windeyer J said in Semlitch (at 638):
“Here the application was put on the basis that the employment was a contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a disease. I turn therefore to the evidence as it relates to the following questions, formulated having regard to the terms used in the Act –
(a) Was the applicant suffering from a disease?
(b) If so, was there an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of it?
(c) If so, was her employment a contributing factor?
(d) If so, did a total or partial incapacity for work result from such aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration?”
In Semlitch, Kitto J said (at 635) (quoting with approval Moffitt J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales):
“There is an exacerbation of a disease where the experience of the disease by the patient is increased or intensified by an increase or intensifying of symptoms. The word is directed to the individual and the effect of the disease upon him rather than being concerned with the underlying mechanism.”
In discussing whether there had been an aggravation, Windeyer J said:
“The question whether there has been an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a mental disorder is, I think, essentially one of fact. It is a question on which the opinion of psychiatrists may obviously be helpful. But the answer depends on whether for the sufferer the consequences of his affliction have become more serious. The criteria of that are comparisons based upon the nature, apparent intensity and persistence of irrational beliefs, the degrees of insight and of withdrawal from reality that the sufferer has, the degree of his divergence from what may seem to be normal behaviour and the extent of his capacity to participate in and adjust himself to the normal requirements of life as a member of the community. It is by considerations of that sort, partly the results of observation of conduct and demeanour and partly elicited from what the patient says, that the question must I think be answered, whoever has to answer it.” (at 637).
Burke CCJ, applying Semlitch in Cant v Catholic Schools Office[7], said:
“The thrust of these comments is that irrespective of whether the pathology has been accelerated there is relevant aggravation or exacerbation of the disease if the symptoms and restrictions emanating from it have increased and become more serious to the injured worker.”
[7] [2000] NSWCC 37; (2000) 20 NSWCCR 88.
It is clear that the events of 2012 and their aftermath continued to affect the applicant. He continued to take medication and undergo psychological treatment (which had in fact commenced before the critical incident occurred), and this was the case right up until the events of September 2024, which caused him to cease work entirely.
The applicant was certified fit for his pre-injury duties in December 2013. He has given evidence of traumatic events to which he was exposed between 2013 and 2018. His evidence is uncontradicted and I see no reason not to accept it.
The applicant’s distress was such that he sought and obtained a transfer away from front-line policing in 2018.
The applicant has given evidence of events that occurred once he became part of the Technology Command, including usually working 60 hours per week, and his reaction to those events. His evidence is again uncontradicted and I see no reason not to accept it.
The applicant was then significantly distressed by the incident at Bondi Junction in April 2024, with its similarities to the shooting in which he had been involved, and his knowledge of what the officer who was involved in that incident may expect to happen to her.
On 26 September 2024, the applicant found himself unable to cope, overwhelmed, and crying uncontrollably in his office.
I have discussed the medical evidence above. There were occasions when the applicant’s condition had improved, and many attendances were to obtain prescriptions and/or certificates of capacity because EML was paying for his medication. His post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms flared “every few years”, according to Dr Dharmaratne in February 2022.
Dr Dharmaratne opined that the applicant had sustained an aggravation due to a change in work circumstances and increased workload. His post-traumatic stress had not resolved but had been managed with treatment. He had had an exacerbation of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms but sustained the new condition of major depression.
The applicant’s attendances on Ms Taylor were reasonably frequent until February 2016, when there was a gap of 10 months, and he then attended a “maintenance session”. His next attendance was not until April 2018, at which time he had implemented self-management, but was seeking intervention to mitigate the heightened anxiety he had been experiencing.
Throughout 2022 and 2023, the applicant presented mainly with family issues, but work stress was recorded in October 2023, and in 2024.
I do not accept the submission that Dr Jovanova “stepped into the arena”. She recorded a history that mainly accords with the applicant’s evidence, which I have said I accept. She simply pointed out the underlying facts – the applicant had been a police officer for over 27 years, he loved his work, he prided himself on his mental and physical strength, and his wife was a colleague. The evidence shows that the applicant did have a traumatic upbringing, and he did see himself as a protector of his family.
Dr Jovanova’s opinion was expressed before she obtained input from the applicant’s wife. It was based on her consultation with the applicant and the history she obtained from him. I accept her evidence and that of Dr Dharmaratne.
When the “four step process” described in Semlitch is considered:
(a)    the applicant was suffering from a disease, that is, post-traumatic stress disorder;
(b)    there was an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the disease – the applicant went from functioning as a high-ranking police officer, albeit with some difficulty over the years, and with the support of medical treatment, to withdrawing from colleagues, losing his temper and yelling at a colleague, sobbing uncontrollably in his office, and an inability to work at all. “The experience of the disease by [the applicant was] increased or intensified by an increase or intensifying of symptoms”;
(c)    the applicant’s employment was a contributing factor, and
(d)    total incapacity for work resulted from the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration.
The applicant has sustained an aggravation of a disease, pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act.
The respondent submitted that the deemed date of injury was the date of the applicant’s first incapacity, relying on the decision of Member Strachan in Shlimon. However, as the applicant submitted, pursuant to s 15 of the 1987 Act, the applicant could have two dates of injury.
The decision in Shlimon does not assist the respondent.
Shlimon was concerned with a claim for permanent impairment compensation.
Member Strachan found that Mr Shlimon had sustained injuries on 3 November 2004 (deemed date), and further injury on 22 July 2020 (deemed date). The first injury materially contributed to the further injury, such that impairment resulting from the latter injury was to be assessed as resulting from the injury on 3 November 2004.
Member Strachan said (at [41]):
“Section 15 of the 1987 Act does not operate such that the applicant having had an earlier injury with a deemed date of 3 November 2004, is not entitled to a finding of a further injury where he has continued to work in employment with the same employer giving rise to a further injury. Where the applicant has continued to work and then there is further injury resulting in incapacity, s 15 operates to deem a further date of injury, This is consistent with the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in Haddad.[8] 22 July 2020 being the date of further incapacity, I reject the respondent’s submission that there is only one date of injury in 2004…” (Emphasis added).
[8] Haddad v The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 135.
In Haddad, the Court of Appeal found that whether a worker has an incapacity resulting from the injury (being a reduction in earning capacity giving rise to an entitlement to claim weekly compensation) is a question of fact to be determined by all the relevant evidence.
The first step is to enquire as to whether there is an incapacity flowing from the injury for which compensation is claimed. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the date of incapacity is the deemed date of injury.
The applicant has an incapacity resulting from the injury, which I have found to be an aggravation of a disease, pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act. The date of that incapacity was 26 September 2024. Applying Haddad, that is therefore the deemed date of injury.
As Mr Shlimon’s claim was one for permanent impairment, Member Strachan was obliged to consider ss 322(2) and 322(3) of the 1998 Act. Sections 322(2) and 322(3) require that impairments that result from the same injury, or from more than one injury arising out of the same incident, are to be assessed together to assess a worker’s permanent impairment.
Member Strachan found that he was required to follow the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ozcan v Macarthur Disability Services Ltd.[9]
[9] [2021] NSWCA 56 (Ozcan).
In Ozcan, MacFarlan JA (Simpson AJA and McCallum JA agreeing) said that the relevant question was “whether the later [injury] resulted from those on the first date. If they did,
s 322(3) of the 1998 Act required them to be assessed with the impairment arising out of the [first injury] because all the injuries arose out of the same incident.”
MacFarlan JA further concluded in Ozcan “the impairments are however connected because the first incident injuries materially contributed to them”. They therefore “arose out of” and “resulted from” that incident.
As Member Strachan found that Mr Shlimon’s later conditions arose out of and resulted from the 2004 injury, impairment from the injury on 22 July 2020 was to be assessed as resulting from the injury on 3 November 2004. The compensation payable pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act was to be calculated with reference to the injury on 3 November 2004. That is an entirely different situation to the present case, in which the applicant claims weekly benefits compensation.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the applicant has sustained an injury, being the aggravation of a disease, pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act, deemed to have happened on 26 September 2024; and I make that finding.
The applicant sought only that his entitlement to weekly benefits be recalculated in accordance with the above finding; and that the respondent have credit for payments made.
The applicant, being an exempt worker, is entitled to an order for his costs.
I will grant the parties liberty to apply in the event they are unable to agree on the appropriate payment of weekly benefits.
The orders are set out in the Certificate of Determination.

[2025] NSWPIC 467

9 September 2025