Cheney and Telstra Corporation Limited (Compensation) - [2024] AATA 3614

Cheney and Telstra Corporation Limited (Compensation) [2024] AATA 3614 (11 October 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2021/4168
Re:Karen Cheney
APPLICANT

AndTelstra Corporation Limited
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Mr S. Webb, Member
Date:11 October 2024
Place:Sydney

The decision under review is affirmed.
.................................[sgd].......................................
Catchwords
WORKERS COMPENSATION – psychiatric ‘ailment’ – compensation claim – liability to pay compensation – ‘disease’ – work stress – perceptions of bullying and harassment – psychotic ailment – perseveration – cognitive effects of ailment – persecutory delusions – adverse perceptions – contribution of actual incidents – work stress – employment contribution to ailment – ‘significant degree’ threshold not met – no ‘injury’ – decision affirmed
Legislation
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4, 5A, 5B, 7, 14
Cases
Comcare v Reardon [2015] FCA 1166
De Tarle v Comcare [2022] FCA 175
Dean v Australian Postal Corporation [2010] FCA 680
Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth of Australia [1985] FCA 440
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May [2016] HCA 19
Comcare vMooi[1996] FCA 1587
Weigand v Comcare [2002] FCA 1464
Wuth v Comcare [2022] FCAFC 42
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr S. Webb, Member
11 October 2024

Karen (Kassie) Cheney was employed by Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra). She became mentally unwell. Her employment was terminated. She lodged a claim for compensation, alleging she experienced work stress, bullying and sexual harassment in her employment which contributed to her mental illness. Telstra decided, by primary determination and on reconsideration, Ms Cheney is not entitled to compensation and refused her claim. Ms Cheney lodged an application for review of this decision by the Tribunal.
It is appropriate to observe at the outset this case raises issues of mental illness and causation which are medically and legally perplexing and, in practical and human terms, sad and difficult.
Facts
Ms Cheney is 39 years old.
She has given extensive and detailed written statements setting out events she considers relevant in these proceedings.[1] As a teenager, she experienced family stresses. Her parents separated for a time in 1997. She attempted self-harm after a “fight with my then boyfriend” and stated she was “sexually assaulted by a male friend”. [2] She played sports and completed the Higher School Certificate in or about 2003.
[1] Exhibit 3, pages 16-81; T41, T42 and T43
[2] Exhibit 3, page 17.
Ms Cheney commenced employment with Telstra in or about June 2004. At that time, she was employed as a Retail Sales Officer in a Telstra shop. In 2007, Ms Cheney progressed to employment as a Business Administrator/Personal Assistant in Telstra’s Enterprise and Government business in Sydney.[3] In October 2009, she was employed in the Delivery Works Program area as an analyst “at head office” administering Telstra’s resource management system. In 2011, Ms Cheney worked in accounting and financial reporting, and she “sometimes filled the role of acting manager”.[4] In the period from March 2007 to November 2011, she received awards for her work.[5]

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cheney and Telstra Corporation Limited (Compensation) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] AATA 3614
Decision Date: 11 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned a compensation claim brought by Ms Cheney against Telstra Corporation Limited. Ms Cheney alleged that she suffered a psychiatric ailment as a result of work stress, including perceptions of bullying and harassment, which she contended constituted an "injury" for the purposes of workers' compensation legislation.

The primary legal issue before the Member was whether Ms Cheney's psychiatric condition, characterised by perseveration, cognitive effects, persecutory delusions, and adverse perceptions, qualified as a "disease" or "injury" under the relevant workers' compensation legislation. This required the court to determine if the employment contribution to her ailment reached the statutory threshold of a "significant degree."

The Member considered extensive evidence, including Ms Cheney's personal statements detailing past personal stresses and her employment history with Telstra, which spanned various roles from 2004 to 2013. Medical evidence and the testimony of Ms Cheney's manager were also presented. Ultimately, the Member found that while Ms Cheney experienced work stress and perceived bullying and harassment, the evidence did not establish that her employment contributed to her psychiatric ailment to a "significant degree."

Consequently, the decision under review, which found that Ms Cheney had not suffered an "injury" as defined by the legislation, was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

It is appropriate to observe at the outset this case raises issues of mental illness and causation which are medically and legally perplexing and, in practical and human terms, sad and difficult.Facts Ms Cheney is 39 years old. She has given extensive and detailed written statements setting out events she considers relevant in these proceedings.[1] As a teenager, she experienced family stresses. Her parents separated for a time in 1997. She attempted self-harm after a “fight with my then boyfriend” and stated she was “sexually assaulted by a male friend”. [2] She played sports and completed the Higher School Certificate in or about 2003.[1] Exhibit 3, pages 16-81; T41, T42 and T43[2] Exhibit 3, page 17. Ms Cheney commenced employment with Telstra in or about June 2004. At that time, she was employed as a Retail Sales Officer in a Telstra shop. In 2007, Ms Cheney progressed to employment as a Business Administrator/Personal Assistant in Telstra’s Enterprise and Government business in Sydney.[3] In October 2009, she was employed in the Delivery Works Program area as an analyst “at head office” administering Telstra’s resource management system. In 2011, Ms Cheney worked in accounting and financial reporting, and she “sometimes filled the role of acting manager”.[4] In the period from March 2007 to November 2011, she received awards for her work.[5][3] Exhibit 4, pages 2830-2831.[4] Exhibit 3, page 17; Exhibit 4, page 2830 refers.[5] Exhibit 3, pages 82-86. In July 2012, Ms Cheney was employed in Telstra’s Network Applications and Services Division as an information analyst in Professional Services and Business Operations Commercial, Audit and Compliance team.[6] She continued in this employment until March 2013.[6] Exhibit 4, page 2829. In 2012, Ms Cheney broke up with her (then) partner. On 14 July 2012, she consulted Dr Sowmyn Sreeharan, a general practitioner at the Kildara Medical Centre, who noted:under a lot of stress by her own admissionseparation from partner of 12 years-sounds messyhaving councillinghere to discuss abnormal physical sx-wonders if stress related but wants them checked1) Bowel change,fluctuates from constipation to diarrhoeaNo weight loss abdo pain etc…2) 3/12 heat feeling on top of head..now pressure feeling off and on in forehead and face…Imp-nil sinister neurologySounds like attypical tension type headaches…Nb explained she looks physically well with no abnormal signs. Explained atypical headaches and bowel sxCan be manifestation of stress…[7][7] Exhibit 4, page 1701. In March 2013, Ms Cheney was employed as an information analyst in the Delivery, Support and Enablement team which was managed by Paul Ventura. At the time, the team was comprised of Ketan Parmar, Chris Stevenson, Mike Nolis and a woman who “left the team after a few weeks”.[8][8] Exhibit 3, page 19. Mr Ventura described Ms Cheney as a relatively young, inexperienced and junior member of the team he perceived as a highly strung or “troubled individual”, who was treated with “great care” and “kid gloves”.[9] Nevertheless, on Mr Ventura’s evidence, the team worked in a high-pressure environment, running up to 1,000 projects at a time with up to 300 project managers and demanding clients. In this context, Ms Cheney’s role involved data analysis in respect of project performance and financials. Mr Ventura explained that Ms Cheney was required to work long hours from time to time in order to meet particular deadlines or requirements. Furthermore, the nature of some projects required changes to be made on client premises, out of hours so as not to affect ongoing operations.[9] Ibid, pages 89 and 90.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

That being so, the decision under review must be affirmed.Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.