Charles Sturt University v Turner
[2007] NSWWCCPD 50
•13 February 2007
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:Charles Sturt University v Turner [2007] NSWWCCPD 50
APPELLANT: Charles Sturt University
RESPONDENT: Julie Lea Turner
INSURER:Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited
FILE NUMBER: WCC19922-05
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 23 May 2006
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 13 February 2007
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Psychiatric injury; section 40 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Acting Deputy President Julian Martin
HEARING:On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Vardanega Roberts Solicitors
Respondent: Commins Hendriks Solicitors
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: 1. The decision of the Arbitrator dated 23 May 2006 is confirmed, but for the reasons stated in this decision.
2.No order as to costs of the appeal.
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
On 20 June 2006 Charles Sturt University (‘the University’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 23 May 2006.
The Respondent to the Appeal is Julia Lea Turner (‘Mrs Turner’) who was born on 27 December 1958 and is now 48 years old. She is married and has three children, the youngest still living at home at the time of the arbitration hearing.
Mrs Turner commenced employment with the University in 1987 as a kitchen hand. She then did other work with the University including waitressing and reception until the year 2000 when she was promoted to Communications Officer in the Department of Residence and Catering (‘the Department’).
As Communications Officer, Mrs Turner was directly responsible to Mr Callander who is the Director of the Department. In her position she had responsibility for data networks and telephonic communications of the various campuses of the University.
After starting work in the Department Mrs Turner alleges that she witnessed Mr Callander making derogatory comments concerning personal aspects of other staff members. Whilst initially these comments did not involve her, she subsequently became the object of Mr Callander’s derogatory remarks. These included inappropriate sexual comments to her. He would also embarrass and humiliate her in public and was generally intimidatory.
Mrs Turner had increasing difficulty in coping with this behaviour directed at her, which led to problems with her ability to cope with the responsibilities of her job. She began to suffer from panic attacks at work and on 25 October 2004 she felt overwhelmed and left work.
Provisional weekly payments of compensation were made until liability was denied on 4 January 2005. Mrs Turner remained away from work until she returned to suitable duties with the University on 21 February 2005.
Proceedings were commenced in the Commission on 24 November 2005 and an arbitration hearing took place on 10 March 2006.
A Certificate of Determination was issued on 23 May 2006 and the University has appealed from that decision.
THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW
The ‘Certificate of Determination’, dated 23 May 2006 records the Arbitrator’s orders as follows:
“1.The Respondent to pay to the Applicant weekly workers compensation on the basis of total incapacity in respect of the period 5 January 2005 to 20 February 2005 in accord with Section 36 of the Act.
2.The Respondent to pay to the Applicant weekly workers compensation in respect of the period for partial incapacity from 21 February 2005 to date and continuing at the agreed rate of $64.55 per week.
3.The Respondent to pay the Applicant’s Section 60 expenses as might be deemed reasonable and necessary.
4.The Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.”
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The issues in dispute in the appeal are:
(a)whether the Arbitrator erred regarding the inferences to be drawn from the absence of crucial evidence;
(b)whether the Arbitrator misconstrued the evidence on the issue of injury and the application of Townsend v Commissioner of Police (1992) 25 NSWCCR 9 [‘Townsend’s case’];
(c)whether the Arbitrator overlooked a considerable body of oral evidence; and
(d)whether the Arbitrator failed to consider all of the evidence when entering an award pursuant to section 40 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’).
ON THE PAPERS REVIEW
Section 354(6) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’) provides:
“(6)If the Commission is satisfied that sufficient information has been supplied to it in connection with proceedings, the Commission may exercise functions under this Act without holding any conference or formal hearing.”
The University submits that the matter is capable of being dealt with ‘on the papers’ whilst Mrs Turner does not concede this point. Having regard to Practice Directions Numbers 1 and 6 and the documents that are before me, I am satisfied that I have sufficient information to proceed ‘on the papers’, without holding any conference or formal hearing, and that this is the appropriate course in the circumstances.
LEAVE
Before proceeding to deal with an appeal the Commission must determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 352 of the 1998 Act.
The appeal was lodged within 28 days of the Arbitrator’s decision in compliance with section 352(4) of the 1998 Act.
As the matter involves an ongoing award of weekly compensation, backdated to 5 January 2005, it exceeds the threshold in section 352(2)(a) of the 1998 Act.
I grant leave to appeal.
FRESH EVIDENCE
Neither party seeks leave to introduce fresh evidence.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
The University have sought leave to supplement their submissions on receipt of the transcript of the arbitration hearing. A copy of the transcript was forwarded to both parties on 29 June 2006 and no further submissions have been received from either party.
Failure to Draw Inferences
As stated above, Mrs Turner stopped work as a result of the injury on 25 October 2004. Before this date she was off work from 12 August 2004 to 5 October 2004 in order to undergo elective surgery to the salivary gland on the left side of her face. It was the University’s case that Mrs Turner was anxious and depressed for reasons other than her work with the University.
Peter John Bell who was employed by the University provided a statement dated 3 November 2004. Mr Bell was Mrs Turner’s immediate supervisor from approximately March 2004. Mr Bell states that he observed a noticeable difference in Mrs Turner’s general demeanour and attitude to her work around this time.
Mr Bell goes on to state that he, Mr Callander and another employee, Kylie Butler-McIntosh, at this time were concerned for Mrs Turner’s mental well-being and had privately discussed this. He further states that Kylie had told him Mrs Turner “was extremely anxious about coming back to work after her operation and had been seeing a counsellor one day a week in relation to her increased anxiety”.
Mr Bell in his statement says:
“I can categorically state that I have never seen or heard of any staff member verbally abuse Julie. I have never been involved, witnessed or heard of any staff member harassing Julie.”
At the conclusion of the arbitration hearing the parties filed written submissions. The University argued that because Mrs Turner failed to present evidence from the counsellor that she was seeing prior to stopping work on 25 October 2004, an inference should be drawn that such evidence would not support her case. It was further submitted that without this contemporaneous evidence Mrs Turner had failed to discharge the necessary onus.
The Arbitrator in his decision at paragraphs 36 and 37 stated:
“There are a number of issues which I find curious in this case, namely the failure on the part of the Applicant to provide any evidence from the counsellor she had alluded to have been consulting one day a week prior to 25 October 2004. Similarly I am mindful of the Applicant’s Counsel’s submissions that a careful reading of the statements reveals that many of the allegations of her harassments levelled by the Applicant against Mr Callander are not specifically denied by him in his statement…
…In analysing the evidentiary material before me the task is made increasingly more difficult by the manner and structure of the various statements. I refer specifically to the manner in which the statements were made in that a great deal of the material is hearsay. Accordingly I am left to determine the factual situation on what I have before me and in particular the observations made at the time of the Applicant’s oral evidence and questions asked of her by the Respondent’s counsel…”
On appeal the University submits that the Arbitrator’s failure to take into account the inference referred to above is an error of law (Jones v Dunkel [1958-59] 101 CLR 298).
I reject this submission by the University and agree with the Arbitrator that, having regard to the hearsay material, it was proper to “determine the factual situation” on the material before him and in particular Mrs Turner’s evidence.
In her written statement (undated) annexed to the Application to Review a Dispute Mrs Turner states that on stopping work on 25 October 2004 her general practitioner referred her to Pauline Jones for weekly counselling sessions.
Pauline Jones, Senior Clinical Social Worker, in a report dated 19 January 2006 states she counselled Mrs Turner on 14 occasions from 29 October 2004 to 13 May 2005. The report takes a full history of the ‘verbal and emotional abuse’ at the University and notes:
“Mrs Turner denied any significant stressors in her family life or social life. It would appear that her condition is fully attributable to workplace factors.”
There is a contemporaneous report from Josephine Cannon, psychologist, dated 16 November 2004. Ms Cannon saw Mrs Turner on 10 November 2004 at the request of the University’s insurer. This report records allegations of “inappropriate sexual remarks and humiliating comments from Mr Callander and the aggressive behaviour from Mr Peter Bell in recent months”. Ms Cannon was of the opinion that:
“Mrs Turner’s symptomatology is consistent with the diagnostic criteria of a major depressive episode and anxiety disorder (panic attack) as specified in the American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV); which is the direct result of prolonged exposure to ridicule and victimisation from people who hold higher office than herself, especially the director Mr. Callander.”
Ms Cannon further noted that Mrs Turner consulted her general practitioner on the afternoon of 25 October 2004 and that Mrs Turner stated:
“that she has also undergone psychological counselling several times prior to the incident on 25th October 2004 for work related stress”.
There is a report from the general practitioner, Dr Lee Jeffery, dated 15 February 2006. The doctor states that Mrs Turner first came to see her with this illness on 25 October 2004. Dr Jeffery took a history of the workplace “verbal harassment” and states she encouraged her to see a psychologist.
Finally I note that in extensive cross-examination of Mrs Turner at the arbitration hearing, she was asked about a number of issues raised in Mr Bell’s statement. She was not asked about seeing a counsellor prior to 25 October 2004 as related to Mr Bell by Kylie Butler-McIntosh.
I am not altogether satisfied that there was evidence of non work-related stress that could be called from another counsellor. If there was, Mrs Turner was not given the opportunity to offer an explanation in cross-examination.
Injury
As stated above Mrs Turner gave evidence of derogatory comments by Mr Callander. This evidence was contained in two written statements and the histories provided to the health professionals. Mrs Turner also gave oral evidence.
The University tendered into evidence written statements from Mr Callander and Mr Bell. They did not give oral evidence.
The University in their written submissions after the arbitration hearing argued that if Mrs Turner had a psychiatric condition, it resulted from a false perception of Mr Callander’s conduct and was not compensable. In support of this submission the University referred to the following cases; ‘Townsend’s case’, Stewart v NSW Police Service 1998) 17 NSWCCR 202 and Thazin-Aye v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (1995) 12 NSW CCR 304.
On appeal it is submitted that the Arbitrator failed to consider the direct challenge to Mrs Turner’s perception of Mr Callander’s conduct. At paragraph 50 of the decision the Arbitrator stated:
“I am mindful of the Respondent’s argument and that which is proffered by the Respondent’s medical evidence that the situation here is one of a perception on the part of the Applicant. I am mindful of the authorities to which I have been directed and in particular Townsend -v- Commissioner of Police NSW CC and Stuart -v- NSW Police Service [sic]. In the first instance in the case of Townsend the issue of perception was the paramount consideration. In this case I am not satisfied that it was a mere perception of affairs within her work environment that brought about her work environment [sic]. They are I feel real and unchallenged issues. As I had said from the outset the Respondent had more than ample time to take further statements from either Mr Bell or Mr Callander to address specifically the incidents alluded to by the Applicant in her statement to the Respondent’s investigating officer on 3 November 2004, however they elected not to do so...”
I see no error on the part of the Arbitrator. Mr Callander did not rebut the allegations made by Mrs Turner either in his written statement or by oral evidence. In cross-examination it was not put to Mrs Turner that her allegations of derogatory comments made by Mr Callander were false. Mrs Turner however was asked in cross-examination about her attitude to jokes (transcript page 40):
“Q …but you don’t take offence. Or do you?
A As I say it depends. There’s jokes and there’s jokes.”
On being asked about specific jokes and whether they were the reason for her psychological incapacity, Mrs Turner replied (transcript page 42):
“There’s a combination of things.”
In addition to reports from the health professionals referred to above, Mrs Turner was seen by Dr Gertler at the request of her solicitor. In his report of 26 September 2005 the doctor stated:
“Mrs Turner’s adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood, which is a recognizable psychiatric illness, has arisen from alleged actions by her employer, which were in my opinion, unreasonable and not related to performance appraisal, discipline or dismissal. Her employment was a substantial contributing factor to her developing the adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood.”
Mrs Turner was referred to Dr Sid Williams, Consultant Psychogeriatrician, by her general practitioner. In a report dated 1 August 2005 the doctor stated:
“She is currently experiencing significant classical depressive symptoms… Her account of the apparent harassment and abuse she experienced at work suggests to me that this was real and quite extreme also, rather than being some sort of exaggeration, fantasy or delusional phenomenon.”
Dr Kaplan, Forensic Psychiatrist, saw Mrs Turner at the request of the University’s solicitors on 16 January 2006 and stated:
“Secondly, she is making a range of allegations against the Director and Operations Manager and maintains that a number of other staff were affected. While I find her a credible witness, as did the other two reporters, there is no information provided on the background to these claims, or other details provided to determine whether she was subjected to harassment or reacted poorly to allegations about bad workplace performance….
In summary, it is only possible to make a provisional diagnosis at this assessment. Ms Turner has symptoms of a severe Adjustment Disorder with depression and anxiety/alternate MDD.”
Dr Kaplan was provided with additional information and in a supplementary report dated 9 February 2006 stated:
“While Ms Turner has the perception of being victimised and forced to return to her duties without any attempt to resolve the situation, this is incorrect. She may be too unwell to return to work in her present state, but this is unrelated to the claim.
The additional information reinforces the likelihood that the claim is influenced by personality factors and her depressive illness is unrelated to work.
Ms Turner’s condition is not due to a work-related illness and her employment is not a substantial contributing factor towards her illness.”
Part of the additional information provided to Dr Kaplan was objected to by Mrs Turner’s counsel at the arbitration hearing and was therefore not evidence before the Arbitrator.
The Arbitrator after stating that he had “…very grave doubts as to the probative value of Dr Kaplan’s subsequent report”, stated at paragraph 48:
“I believe the best I can adduce from Dr Kaplan’s second report is that the doctor is of the view that the Applicant’s condition emanates from a perception of being victimised and forced to return to her duties without any attempt to resolve the situation. I note Dr Kaplan comments “She may be too unwell to return to work in her present state, but this is unrelated to the claim.” To accept this statement would be to totally and utterly reject the balance of the Applicant’s claim, namely the allegations directed to Mr Chandler [sic].”
It is further submitted that so far as section 11A of the 1987 Act was an issue in the case, there was no challenge to the reasonableness of Mr Callander’s conduct relating to a transfer of Mrs Turner. As Dr Gertler stated in his report which I have referred to above, Mrs Turner’s psychiatric illness is “…not related to performance appraisal, discipline or dismissal”.
“The weight and relevance of the evidence is a matter in the discretion of the Arbitrator, upon due consideration of that evidence” (John Robinson t/as Robinson’s Pharmacy v King [2005] NSWWCCPD 39) (‘Robinson’s case’). This is particularly so where the Arbitrator had the benefit of seeing Mrs Turner give evidence. The Arbitrator had this to say about her evidence at paragraph 49:
“Having had the opportunity of observing the tenacity expressed by the Applicant in response to questioning her forthrightness in response to those questions and her general demeanour I am satisfied that the Applicant can be considered to be a person of truth…”
I see no failure on the part of the Arbitrator in the exercise of his discretion. In my opinion he exercised this both fairly and lawfully on the issue of injury.
Oral evidence not considered
The majority of the matters raised here have been dealt with above. However the University further submits that the Arbitrator failed to consider the evidence of Mr Bell.
As stated above, Mr Bell was Mrs Turner’s immediate supervisor from approximately March 2004. In his written statement, as referred to above, Mr Bell said:
“I can categorically state that I have never seen or heard of any staff member verbally abuse Julie. I have never been involved, witnessed or heard of any staff member harassing Julie. I am aware that over the last eight months Julie has exhibited signs of increased anxiety, a decrease in her work performance, an apathetic attitude to her work, working in isolation to her colleagues and a pronounced difference in her general demeanour and attitude from a bright, energetic, enthusiastic and motivated person to an unhappy, disinterested and apathetic person.”
The Arbitrator in his decision at paragraph 36 in fact specifically quotes this part of Mr Bell’s statement. In so doing the Arbitrator made the following point:
“Clearly it may be that I am simply to accept Mr Bell’s statement in paragraph 13 where it proffers the comment “I can categorically state that I have never seen or heard of any staff member verbally abuse Julie. I have never been involved, witnessed or heard of any staff member harassing Julie.””
The Arbitrator then went on to consider the whole of the evidence before him stating at paragraph 52 of the decision:
“…I am satisfied on balance that the evidence before me inclusive of the medical evidence is supportive of the fact that the Applicant did sustain an injury in the course of her employment with the Respondent and that such employment was a substantial contributing factor to her psychological injury.”
The University in their written submissions filed in the Commission after the arbitration hearing made reference to a copy of an email sent by Mrs Turner to Mr Bell on 18 June 2004. This email was in evidence before the Arbitrator and as the University correctly points out in their submissions on appeal, there is no reference to it in the decision of the Arbitrator.
The email is two pages in length and refers to a meeting between Mrs Turner and Mr Bell on 17 June 2004. The content of the email is emotional and Mrs Turner expresses her concern at what appears to be poor communication between them. At the end of the email Mrs Turner says “I don’t sleep very well or feel very well of late due to several things going on at the moment which you are aware off [sic].”
It is submitted by the University on appeal that it is impossible to contemplate Mrs Turner really held the views that she asserted of Mr Callander’s conduct, and that she should send the email dated 18 June 2004. With respect I fail to fully understand this submission. True it is that it makes no reference to the alleged abuse by Mr Callander, but equally it does not spell out the several things going on of which Mr Bell is aware.
For the reasons as stated above in paragraph 46 I am satisfied that the Arbitrator exercised his discretion fairly and lawfully after considering the whole of the evidence.
Section 40 entitlement
The Arbitrator having found for Mrs Turner on the issue of injury and substantial contributing factor then turned to the question of weekly benefits.
As stated above provisional weekly payments were made to 4 January 2005. In their written submissions filed in the Commission after the arbitration hearing, the University conceded that “the evidence is compelling that the Applicant was totally incapacitated by a psychiatric condition from 24 October 2004 to 20 February 2005”.
The University argued in their written submissions after the arbitration hearing that because Mrs Turner’s general practitioner had certified her “fit for full-time work, but not in her previous section” that her capacity to earn is equal to the capacity she had before her alleged injury. It was further submitted that Mrs Turner had demonstrated a capacity since 28 October 2005 to perform full-time work as an administrative officer at Grade 4 level.
The Arbitrator in his decision noted the parties had agreed at the teleconference on 16 February 2006 that there was an ongoing economic loss of $64.55 per week between her suitable duties and the Grade 4 position she held before the injury.
The Arbitrator awarded Mrs Turner $64.55 per week from 21 February 2005 to date and continuing having regard to the medical evidence of Dr Jeffery and Dr Gertler. At paragraphs 53 and 54 of the decision the Arbitrator stated:
“…In coming to this determination I am mindful of a number of matters, not the least of which is the fact that the medical evidence of the Applicant is such that to return to a Grade 4 in her former environment would only bring about a potential exacerbation of her condition and that is clearly totally unacceptable. I refer specifically to the report of Dr Jeffrey [sic]of 15 February 2006 where she opines “I think Julie’s prognosis is excellent and that she will make a full recovery however I do not think she is able to return to work in the sections of Residence and Catering. I think any attempt to return her to this section will result in a relapse of her symptoms. I do not think it is realistic to think that she will be able to function in an area where she has previously felt harassed. Therefore from a health point of view Julie needs to work in a different section permanently.”
This position is supported by Dr Gertler where he opines “Mrs Turner is coping with her current work situation but would not in my opinion, be able to cope with the return to her previous position. Were that to occur, her emotional state would deteriorate markedly; she remains unfit to return to her pre-injury work duties.””
On appeal the University submit that the Arbitrator erred because he proceeded on the basis that the parties had agreed that if Mrs Turner is partially incapacitated, her award is $64.55 per week.
In reply Mrs Turner submits that the Arbitrator, having found her unfit for her pre-injury employment, was entitled to accept the agreed mathematical difference as being fairly representative of her loss.
There is some merit in the University’s submissions. During Mrs Turner’s oral evidence it was established that the Grade 4 position she held before the injury was still open to her. When asked in cross-examination if she was aware of this, Mrs Turner answered (transcript page 25):
“I can’t go back to Residences and Catering.
Q. That’s so. Yes.
A. Do I have to keep saying that?”
During cross-examination Mrs Turner agreed that she had all of the “mental intellectual and attitudinal skills to work as a level 4” as long as she was not ”exposed to the personalities who cause” her a problem (transcript page 19). In response to a further question asking if she could work at Grade 4 in a different area from where she was injured Mrs Turner answered (transcript page 20):
“I think that over the last 18 months I have changed enormously under the pressures that has been put upon me from these experiences, and I would say I can fulfil that position, yes, but not as easily as I once could. The pressures that are on me now are great, but I still think I do my best.”
The Arbitrator in my view failed to take into account the five step process set out by the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Central West Health Service (1997) 14 NSWCCR 527.
The five steps in assessing entitlement pursuant to section 40 of the 1987 Act are as follows:
(1)Determination of the weekly amount the worker would probably have been earning if uninjured;
(2)Determination of the amount that the worker is earning or would be able to earn (subject to subsection 40(3) and section 43A);
(3)Subtraction of the figure in (2) from the figure in (1);
(4)Exercise of the discretion contained in subsection (1) of section 40; and
(5)Make an award in the amount arrived at by step (4).
The parties had agreed on the mathematical difference between the probable earnings in step (1) and the actual earnings in step (2). The Arbitrator referred to the medical evidence to support his conclusion that Mrs Turner was not fit to return to her pre-injury position at Grade 4 in the Department. What he failed to do was turn his mind to step (2) and step (4).
The Arbitrator having made an error, it is necessary to consider whether the decision should be revoked. In Tan v National Australia Bank Limited [2006] NSWWCCPD 115 Deputy President Fleming stated:
“If such an error is established, and it is such that, but for it, a different decision would have been made then the Presidential Member determining the appeal may revoke the arbitrator’s decision and substitute a deferent decision for it, or may remit the matter to the arbitrator concerned or a different arbitrator for re-determination in accordance with the decision on appeal…”
In considering step (2) I am satisfied that Mrs Turner’s actual earnings are evidence of her ability to earn. In coming to this conclusion I have had regard to the evidence referred to above, the transcript and other material before the Arbitrator and the authority of Aitken v Goodyear Tyre Co [1945] 19 WCR (NSW) 107 (referred to by Deputy President Byron in Metal Manufactures Limited v Gagovski [2006] NSWWCCPD 267):
“As to the phrase ‘is earning’ it has been held that if the partially incapacitated worker is earning something his actual earnings must prima facie be taken as the basis…If, however, it is proved that his actual earnings are not a proper test, because it is for some reason unconnected with his earning power that makes them lower than they should be, the other alternative, what he is ‘able to earn’ must be adopted. This is so where it is shown that he is deliberately taking lower paid work than he could get, or is idling and on this account receiving less than he could be reasonably expected to obtain, or where his actual earnings have been compulsorily reduced by something unconnected with his injury or general earning power…”
I am not satisfied that the evidence established that Mrs Turner was deliberately taking lower paid work than she could get, or was idling.
Further I am not satisfied there are reasons for the exercise of the discretion in step (4) to reduce the amount of $64.55 per week. In Australian Wire Industries v Nicholson (1985) 1 NSWCCR 50 the Court of Appeal held that at this stage all facts had to be examined and this included such matters as “…retirement, other supervening illnesses or injuries, the personal employment history of the worker, and so on.” Having read the transcript, medical reports and other material before the Arbitrator in this matter it is clear that Mrs Turner was well motivated both before her injury and after her return to work in 2005.
DECISION
For the above reasons I am of the view that the Arbitrator’s error is not “such that, but for it, a different decision would have been made”. Accordingly the decision of the Arbitrator of 23 May 2006 is confirmed, but for the reasons stated in this decision.
COSTS
Having regard to my decision with respect to the section 40 determination, I make no order as to costs.
JULIAN MARTIN
Acting Deputy President
13 February 2007
I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION OF JULIAN MARTIN, ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION.
ASSOCIATE
0
3
0