CNN v State of New South Wales (Northern Sydney Local Health District)

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	CNN v State of New South Wales (Northern Sydney Local Health District) [2025] NSWPIC 526
APPLICANT:	CNN
RESPONDENT:	State of New South Wales (Northern Sydney Local Health District)
SENIOR MEMBER:	Elizabeth Beilby
DATE OF DECISION:	4 November 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for psychological injury within section 4(b); Held – award for the respondent as applicant did not establish that employment was the “main contributing factor” to any aggravation; discussion regarding treating notes and how they should be interpreted; applicant and family members names to be de-identified due to sensitive nature of the medical evidence.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) determines: 1. Award for the respondent. 2. Employment was not the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a disease. 3. The name of the applicant and his family members is to be redacted before publication of this decision. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

[CNN] (the applicant) commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) seeking weekly benefits, lump sum compensation and medical expenses. The respondent is the State of NSW (Northern Sydney Local Health District) with whom the applicant was employed as a pharmacy assistant at Mona Vale hospital commencing on
15 September 2014. The claim is for psychological injury which was initiated and /or aggravated when [CNN] was allegedly exposed to a toxic work environment in which he was bullied, harassed and threatened.
The applicant last worked on 20 November 2014, and his employment was terminated on
5 December 2014. It is therefore a short period of employment with the respondent.
By way of correspondence dated 24 June 2024, a claim for lump sum compensation in accordance with s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) was made on the respondent. Reliance was placed upon on the report of Dr Ben Teoh dated 30 May 2024 who assessed 20% WPI.
A s78 notice was issued on 7 January 2025 denying any entitlement to permanent impairment compensation.[1] The respondent relied on ss 4, 11A(1), 33, 59, 60, 65A(3), 66(1) of the 1987 Act together with ss 254 and 261 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act).
[1] Application page 42.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a)    did the applicant suffered an injury pursuant to s 4 of the 1987 Act, and if so;
(b)    is there a valid defence pursuant to s 11A of the 1987 Act, if not;
(c)    is there an entitlement to compensation because of a failure to make a claim for compensation within the time prescribed as required by ss 254 and 261 of the 1998 Act, if so;
(d)    is there total or partial incapacity for work resulting from an injury as required by s 33 of the 1987 Act, and
(e)    was medical or related treatment reasonably necessary as a result of an injury as required by ss 59 and 60 of the 1987 Act?

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

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.
The parties agreed that there should be a primary determination in respect of primary liability and if the applicant was successful in relation to that claim there should be a referral to a Medical Assessor for whole person impairment assessment and the residual matters relating to weekly benefits should be determined after the issuing of a Medical Assessment Certificate.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and considered in making this determination:
(a)    Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents (Application);
(b)    Reply to the Application, and
(c)    late documents dated 10 July 2025 and 15 July 2025.

Relevant legislation

Section 4 of the 1987 Act provides;
“‘injury’ --
(a)     means personal injury arising out of or in the course of employment,
(b)     includes a
‘disease injury’ , which means--
(i)      a disease that is contracted by a worker in the course of employment but only if the employment was the main contributing factor to contracting the disease, and
(ii)     the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration in the course of employment of any disease, but only if the employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the disease
The applicant’s case is that [CNN] suffered a psychiatric injury in the nature of an aggravation, exacerbation or deterioration of his pre-existing condition.[2]
[2] Notice of Claim, application page 34.

Applicant’s evidence

[CNN] has provided a statement which is annexed to his Application dated
[3] Application p 1.
7 April 2025.[3] [CNN] provided evidence that he was born in India into a strict and often violent household. There was an episode of self-harm when the applicant was 15, from which he recovered.
The applicant migrated to Sydney Australia in 2000 and started working as a process worker in an electronics factory. He then returned to India to complete his university studies and successfully completed a degree in pharmacy.
The applicant met his first wife ‘[BOZ]’ at University. This culminated in a marriage in 2004, and a son born in March 2005. There is no doubt that the applicant is a dedicated father.
Upon his return to Australia the applicant worked as a process worker for some period of time.
In 2010 the applicant’s wife [BOZ] was diagnosed with schizophrenia. The applicant continued to work as a process worker as he was the sole income earner for the family. The applicant is candid in his statement that the diagnosis and subsequent associated behaviours caused difficulty in the relationship and household. The applicant found it difficult to manage work and support his family whilst working through the relationship issues.
In 2012 the applicant took medication for his situational depression as prescribed by
Dr Nicola, his then general practitioner.
In March 2013 the applicant’s wife was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the charges were heard in Kogarah Local Court. Shortly thereafter, the applicant’s father passed away and he travelled to India so he could attend his father’s funeral.
Upon returning to work the applicant found it difficult to cope and his employment was subsequently terminated.
In May 2013 the applicant was admitted to the St George Hospital Mental Health Unit because of depression symptomatology. He was experiencing difficulties with managing his wife’s mental illness and his father passing away. He remained in hospital for a week because of his depression.
In 2013 the applicant and his wife separated but continued living under the same roof. He felt he had no other choice. His wife still suffered symptoms from her schizophrenia, and he wanted his son to have a continuing relationship with his wife.
The applicant obtained employment in September 2013 for Baxter Health Care Pty Limited as a full-time pharmacy technician. The applicant observed that there were still difficulties in managing the relationship between himself and his wife.
In November 2013 the applicant was given three months leave from his employment at Baxter Health Care and he travelled to India alone and was introduced to ‘[CIZ]’ by family members. A relationship then commenced which culminated in a marriage in December 2013.
The applicant then returned to Sydney in January 2014 whilst his wife remained in India and the relationship continued by long distance. A divorce from [BOZ] was ultimately granted though her schizophrenia was relatively florid.
The applicant ended up resigning from his job at Baxter in March 2014 and he returned to India until May 2014.
Upon his return to Sydney the applicant applied for three or four jobs before he obtained an interview with the respondent. He felt at that stage he was doing pretty well psychologically and felt positive. He was keen to get to work and wanted a good future for [CIZ], himself and his son. At that stage he wasn’t taking any antidepressant medication, and he was very focused on a positive future.
On 13 September 2014 the applicant received a written offer of employment from the respondent for the position of a pharmacy assistant. He says he was so moved by this offer that he cried tears of joy and felt that his dream had come true.
The applicant commenced employment with the respondent as a full-time pharmacy assistant at Mona Vale Hospital on 15 September 2014. He took pride in his job and intended to progress in the role to have a successful career with the New South Wales Health Service. The applicant moved his family to Dee Why to be closer to his work.
The applicant observed there was quite a lot of walking in his job including walking up and down stairs as pharmacy workers were not allowed to use the elevators when attending wards. There was also repetitive crouching and kneeling as he picked medication off pharmacy shelves.
The applicant says that from 7 to 10 October 2014 he did not work because of pain to his legs, and he was on paid leave for those four days. He recalled speaking to Noman Masood (director of pharmacy) explaining to him that he needed to take time off because of pain in his legs. At that time, the applicant was having problems with his ex-wife and had feelings of depression though did not disclose this to Mr Masood over the telephone.
The applicant returned to work on 14 October and spoke to Mr Masood in his office. The applicant said that Mr Masood said to him words to the effect “You’ve just started working here and you’re already taking time off”. The applicant replied that he had pain in his legs and was also having problems with his ex-wife at home and that he had been a victim of domestic violence and was experiencing depression.
The applicant says that Mr Masood replied, “I know what happens with wives in India”, following up with a comment “I don’t want to know about your issues. You previously said you would be committed to your job at your interview”. The applicant felt upset and was crying at this stage and begged Mr Masood to please give him some more time and he would try to change his personal circumstances. The applicant said that Mr Masood replied, “you say you will not let me down, but you have buried me”. The applicant felt that he had been spoken to like a ‘street dog’ and there was no sympathy extended.
The applicant said that the following days he felt affected by the way he had been treated by Mr Masood and felt that Mr Masood had taken some sort of pleasure in torturing him and wanted to break him.
The applicant says that the situation at home continued to be very difficult with his ex-wife. He says that he continued to be depressed and focused on what Mr Masood had said to him and was not sleeping and not functioning well at work.
The applicant was able to work up until 2 November but had negative thoughts and was hardly sleeping. At that time [BOZ]’s psychotic episodes were severe.
On 3 November 2014 the applicant says he was not up to going to work. He telephoned Janet (surname not disclosed), pharmacy supervisor, and said to her that he felt depressed and needed to see a doctor.
The applicant then attended upon Dr Tattersall at Dee Why Medical Centre on 3 November 2014 and was given a script for Avanza. The applicant was certified unfit for work from
3 November 2014 to 17 November 2014. The certificate of capacity was then forwarded to Mr Masood by email on the same day.
The applicant explains that he did not hear from the respondent until 4 November 2014 when Mr Masood telephoned him. He stated Mr Masood indicated that he received the doctor’s certificate and asked him to come and see him at Manly Hospital. The applicant says that
Mr Masood’s manner of speaking was rude with a raised voice. The applicant felt scared and was shaking.
The applicant attended Manly Hospital at 4.00pm later that afternoon where Mr Masood asked him why he was not attending work. The applicant explained that he was depressed and that he had been given a certificate to the effect that he was unfit for work.
The applicant said that Mr Masood then asked him what happened with ‘fair work’, that pharmacies are small communities in Australia and that they all know each other. It became clear to the applicant at that stage that Mr Masood had contacted his previous employer, Baxter Health Care.
The applicant said that Mr Masood then told him he should resign if he is not able to work to which the applicant said that he needed to work as he needed to provide for his family.
Mr Masood replied that if you don’t resign that they will blacklist him. Mr Masood then said that he would give the applicant a time to think and to take another four days leave and come back on Monday or resign. Mr Masood then directed the applicant to “apply religious principles”. The applicant felt in shock and had no idea what religion had to do with his work.
The applicant says that he felt very poorly and felt he had been treated like a street dog. He said tears were rolling down his face because of the way he had been treated.
After this event the applicant says that he could not sleep or eat and was barely functioning. He would stay in his room for hours on end.
The applicant returned to see Dr Tattersall on 15 November 2014 but did not want to complain about the treatment he had received from Mr Masood because he did not want to lose his job. Dr Tattersall increased the applicant’s dosage of Avanza from 30mg to 45mg.
The applicant’s home life continued to be difficult with his ex-wife assaulting him on
16 November 2014 and involving the police.
On 17 November 2014 the applicant returned to Dr Tattersall and received a certificate certifying him unfit for work from 18 November 2014 until 23 February 2015.
After receiving the certificate of capacity, the applicant attended Manly Hospital to present his medical certificate to Mr Masood. Dr Tattersall had mentioned that it would have been good for the applicant to return to India for his mental health. Mr Masood said that they had received a letter from the general practitioner regarding returning to India and indicated that the applicant had to work or resign and if the applicant didn’t resign, he would be blacklisted and unable to apply for a future position.
The applicant asked about unpaid leave which was rejected. Mr Masood offered a casual position two days a week so he could manage his personal affairs and attend work. The applicant said that this would not work as the medicine he is on makes him sleepy until late so he can’t come in. Mr Masood then indicated he would discuss the matter with human resources, and a meeting would take place.
The applicant says he ruminated on his experience with Mr Masood and became worried about his future. On 25 November 2014 he presented to Manly Hospital in a depressed mood.
On 26 November 2014 the applicant self-referred to St George Community Mental Health Unit because he was struggling and experiencing frequent suicidal thoughts. The applicant was then admitted to St George Hospital Mental Health Acute Care from 28 November 2014 to 5 December 2015. He could not stop thinking about Mr Masood’s words about his career in pharmacy being over. Those words and interactions with Mr Masood replayed over and over in his mind.
Whilst the applicant was in St George Hospital, he received a phone call from Mr Masood. It was indicated that a meeting had been arranged to which the applicant replied he was on sick leave. The applicant said Mr Masood then said that his sick leave had not been approved and that if he didn’t attend the appointment his employment would be terminated. The applicant did not disclose in the conversation that he was in hospital.
The applicant attended the disciplinary meeting with the respondent on 2 December 2014 at Manly Hospital. Present at the meeting was Mr Masood and Mr Adam from Human Resources. A discussion took place in relation to the applicant working on a casual basis however the applicant was of the view that his doctor had provided him with a medical certificate which certified him as being unable to work. The applicant was told that there would be another meeting on 4 December. The applicant said that he felt sick because of the pressure that had been placed on him after the meeting and he felt like he wanted to vomit, his head felt like it had been smashed, and he was having suicidal thoughts.
After returning to St George Hospital, the applicant said he spoke to a nurse about the meeting, and she expressed shock at what had occurred. She said she would engage a social worker to speak to the applicant.
The applicant said he was unable to attend the meeting on 4 December as he was struggling psychologically. In addition, he did not have the money to pay for the fares to and from the meeting. The applicant told the respondent he would not attend the meeting.
The applicant also forwarded a letter from a social worker in respect of attendance at the meeting.
The applicant says on 5 December 2014 the respondent terminated his employment. He then lodged an application to the Industrial Relations Commission. He had also sent emails to the respondent because he felt he had been unfairly terminated.
The applicant consulted with Dr Mahadev at Kogarah Railway Medical Centre about how he was treated at work. He was prescribed antidepressant medication by Dr Mahadev.
In January 2015 the applicant had a child with [CIZ].
As a result of the Industrial Relations Commission filing, the applicant entered into a Deed of Release on 5 March 2015. He said he had not received legal advice in respect of any agreement because he did not have the money, and he was also unwell psychologically.
Between 6 March 2015 and 23 April 2015, the applicant returned to India. He says while he was there his mind remained preoccupied with the treatment he had received from the respondent. He ruminated over the words Mr Masood had spoken to him.
When the applicant returned to Sydney, he felt he was not coping well with his depression being severe.
The applicant managed to find a job as a pharmacy technician for Custom Pharmacy in Taren Point. After completing his first shift, the applicant felt that he was unable to continue because of his severe depression.
The applicant continued to be treated by Dr Mahadev who then referred him to Dr Younan, psychiatrist.
The applicant consulted with Dr Younan on 16 February 2016. The applicant says that
Mr Younan did not ask him any questions about his work however told the doctor that his employment was terminated because of his mental health. The applicant also saw Mr Saad, psychologist.
As the months passed, Dr Younan adjusted the applicant’s medication however he continued to have suicidal thoughts and self-harm.
Between March 2018 and February 2020, the applicant lived with his wife and child in Kogarah at which time they decided to return to India where they remained during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In February 2020, the applicant’s second child with [CIZ] was born.
The applicant returned to Sydney in February 2022 and returned to regular treatment with
Dr Mahadev, Dr Younan and Mr Saad.
In late 2023 the applicant was speaking to some close friends about his work injury who suggested that he make a workers compensation claim. He had no experience with that before this time. He spoke to Dr Mahadev about making a claim. The applicant then consulted with Colin Daley Quinn Solicitors in February 2024 for the first time. He said he was unaware of any time limits in respect of making a claim before that date.

The applicant has provided a further statement dated 15 July 2025.[4] In that statement the applicant referred to his job with the respondent stating that he did his best to attend and did his best to notify the respondent when he was not able to attend work. The applicant takes issue with Mr Masood’s statement in many respects particularly where he worked, whether it be at Manly Hospital or not and where he attended meetings.
[4] Late documents dated 15 July 2025.
The applicant wrote a letter or email to Adam Quested, the manager of Human Resources and Culture on 5 December 2014. At that time, the applicant formally resigned from his position as a pharmacy assistant at Mona Vale Hospital due to his carer’s responsibilities of his son. The correspondence states that the respondent was aware that the applicant had been on unpaid leave since 3 November to accommodate his personal carer’s needs with the intention to recommence his duties within the Northern Sydney Local Health District. Unfortunately, the applicant could not find any alternative option other than resigning from his position at that time.
The applicant went on to state that he had enjoyed working with Northern Sydney Local Health District for whatever time he was able to work. He also said that if his circumstances improved in the future then he would like to request an opportunity to enter into the workforce on either a part-time or casual pool to gain further experience.
The applicant completed his correspondence with thanking the respondent for their support and also for the support from his colleagues in his difficult time and he heartfully apologised for any inconvenience caused by his absence or due to this resignation.

Medical evidence

Dr Ben Teoh

Dr Teoh has prepared a report dated 30 May 2024 at the request of the applicant’s solicitors.[5]
[5] Application p 69.
Dr Teoh took a history consistent with the applicant’s statement which includes his admission at hospital, experience of domestic violence and stress at home and feelings of being unsupported by his employer. In addition, Dr Teoh took a history that the applicant had been experiencing psychotic symptoms, delusions and auditory hallucinations and had been paranoid. The applicant had also attempted suicide by cutting his wrists and had thoughts of jumping off a building.
On a mental state examination, Dr Teoh reported observing a depressed mood with preoccupation with negative thoughts, including fleeting suicidal ideation. The applicant was agitated and anxious and had become socially withdrawn. Dr Teoh diagnosed the applicant as having a major depressive disorder to which employment with the respondent had aggravated his pre-existing psychiatric condition. The applicant felt that he was under pressure to return to work, despite being mentally unwell and had experienced significant depressive symptoms before and at the time of employment with Northern Sydney Local Health District.
Dr Teoh also stated that the applicant’s condition was not caused by reasonable conduct or action taken or proposed to be taken by the respondent as the applicant had meetings to discuss his capacity to work and felt unsupported and was under pressure to return to work.
Dr Teoh assessed the applicant as having a 20% whole person impairment.
Dr Teoh has prepared a supplementary report dated 14 March 2025.[6] At that stage Dr Teoh indicated that he had received the records from Ashton Medical Practice which recorded the applicant had been treated for various medical conditions in 2012 where he had been prescribed antidepressant medications including Lexapro 10mg and Pristiq 50mg. In addition, the applicant had been treated for depression over several years and had admissions at a psychiatric ward at St George Hospital in 2012.
[6] Application p 77.
Dr Teoh said that the medical records confirmed that the applicant had a pre-existing psychiatric condition which was well documented in his report.

Dr Honey

Dr Honey, psychiatrist has prepared two reports at the request of the respondent’s solicitors. The first report is dated 4 November 2024.[7] Dr Honey took a history which was consistent with that which has been provided by the applicant in terms of the applicant’s recollection that his employer wanted to terminate him. The applicant said he had been suffering from depression for three to five years before that date and was treated with medication.
[7] Reply p 13.
The applicant also outlined his return to India, his relationship with his second wife who had experienced cancer and his living arrangements. The applicant says that he was now depressed and sometimes felt suicidal, he is scared to go outside and is often suspicious and feels he cannot trust anyone.
On examination, Dr Honey observed the applicant appeared to be rather wooden in his presentation and took some time to understand the nature of the question being put to him. He did however appear to give truthful responses to the questioning, Dr Honey also observed that the applicant’s mood was flat and depressed without evidence of any formal disorder of thought except for some slowing of thinking. The applicant denied any hallucinations at that stage.
Dr Honey diagnosed the applicant as suffering from a chronic schizophrenic illness with a major depressive disorder.
Dr Honey opined that the psychological injury did not arise out of employment, rather the applicant was suffering from significant psychological symptoms prior to and including the time of his brief employment with the respondent. He had a prior history of depression leading up to that time and was under great stress due to significant disturbance in his marriage due to his wife’s schizophrenia and her violent behaviour.
Dr Honey did explain that it is now many years since the applicant’s employment with the respondent which allegedly led to his injury. Dr Honey stated that any psychological symptoms arising from or being aggravated by the event of his dismissal would have long since abated.
Dr Honey further explained that schizophrenia is best described as a disease of gradual process, this is how the illness evolves, and it may well be that in retrospect the diagnosis of schizophrenia may have been made well before the event in question in the workplace in 2014.
Dr Honey has provided a second report dated 21 January 2025.[8] Dr Honey continued to hold the view that any psychological illness or injury from which the applicant was suffering at the time of his employment did not arise from the employment, was pre-existing to his employment and was not due to employment-related causes.
[8] Reply p 22.
Dr Honey explained that there had been considerably distressing events over a long period of time in the applicant’s life including the violent behaviour of his first wife who had suffered from schizophrenia and his subsequent estrangement from his second wife and two children.
Dr Honey observed that the applicant’s last treating psychiatrist diagnosed him as suffering from schizophrenia and it is his view that this was a likely long-term illness, preceding his last employment in its onset, an illness of paranoid schizophrenic type which might render him likely to see ill treatment where there is none. This would lead to his interpretation of behaviour of his employers when they acted in response to his frequent absences from work from the outset of his employment.

Dr Younan

Dr Younan is the applicant’s treating psychiatrist. He first consulted with the applicant on 11 February 2016 and produced a report of the same date.[9] At that time the applicant reported that his behaviour had changed over the last two or three months gradually and this included being suspicious about his wife’s infidelity and becoming suspicious and somewhat hyper-sexualised. The applicant also reported that he slashed his wrists which was essentially in response to frustration. In addition, the applicant felt that he was under surveillance and felt that people were talking to him. Dr Younan described these symptoms as “psychotic and schizophrenic in nature”.
[9] Application p 86.
Dr Younan diagnosed the applicant as having paranoid schizophrenia, a diagnosis which the applicant accepted.
The applicant saw Dr Younan again on 3 March 2016.[10] Whilst the applicant’s sexual thoughts were no longer preoccupying him, he still had persecutory delusions and hallucinations.
[10] Application p 88.
On the examination on 14 April 2016,[11] the applicant continued to suffer from paranoid delusions and was clinically depressed. Such symptomatology continued on review on 6 May 2016[12] and 26 May 2016.[13]
[11] Application p 89.
[12] Application p 90.
[13] Application p 91.
On review on 14 June 2016,[14] the applicant was feeling much better and did not feel depressed. He had stopped hallucinating and had had no further delusions.
[14] Application p 92.
The applicant’s condition relapsed on review on 26 July 2016, in response Dr Younan increased the dose of Zoloft to 200mg per day.
On 25 August 2016, Dr Younan reviewed the applicant again.[15] Unfortunately, at that stage the applicant had begun to hear auditory hallucinations and was paranoid.
[15] Application p 94.
On review on 11 August 2016,[16] the applicant’s condition had improved so that he had no more hallucinations or paranoid symptoms.
[16] Application p 96.
Unfortunately, on review on 10 February 2017,[17] the applicant’s condition had deteriorated, and he was described by Dr Younan as being’ psychotic and severely depressed’. Auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions continued.
[17] Application p 97.
On 2 March 2017 there was further review[18] the applicant’s condition was better in the sense that the period he spends without feeling paranoid and without hearing voices was less frequent than previously. Nevertheless, they still did occur and when that happened it pushed him into a severe depression and despair.
[18] Application p 98.
On review on 31 March 2017,[19] once again the applicant was markedly depressed after getting a sudden delusion that people wanted to put poison in his food. He also felt depressed in relation to both of his legs with the possibility that he may need surgery.
[19] Application p 99.
On review on 7 June 2017,[20] the applicant’s condition had relapsed once again into a psychotic state.
[20] Application p 100.
On 21 September 2017,[21] Dr Younan described the applicant as appearing severely depressed reaching a melancholic state. The applicant continued to be deluded despite the multi antipsychotics that he had been taking.
[21] Application p 101.
On review of 16 November 2017,[22] Dr Younan observed that the applicant was stable and free from any psychotic symptoms. He had been well for some several months.
[22] Application p 102.
On 6 December 2017 the applicant once again saw Dr Younan however was suffering at that stage from paranoid thoughts and hallucinations. This appeared to be after the change in medication.
On review of 4 April 2018,[23] Dr Younan was pleased to find that the applicant was stable with no relapse for the last few months. The applicant did suffer from dizziness and falling episodes however Dr Younan thought these were unlikely to be the side-effects of his current medications.
[23] Application p 104.
The applicant was reviewed again by Dr Younan on 18 April 2019.[24] At that time the applicant had just returned from a period overseas and had been on no medications during the last two months. As a result, Dr Younan described the applicant as starting to hear voices and get paranoid.
[24] Application p 105.
On consultation on 7 May 2019,[25] the applicant described being a cocaine addict for some six months which he had been using to improve his mood. The applicant told Dr Younan that he wanted to return to India and stay there for two months as he would not be able to use cocaine there. Dr Younan encouraged the applicant to do so.
[25] Application p 106.
On examination on 27 September 2019[26] with Dr Younan, the applicant provided a history that he was starting to hear voices and paranoia again.
[26] Application p 107.
Dr Younan had a lengthy consultation with the applicant on 6 May 2022.[27] Dr Younan said that the applicant gave him a detailed history of what had happened to him socially and psychologically since their last consultation in September 2019. Dr Younan observed that the applicant was clear and well organised in his thinking. He also noted low mood and anxiety in relation to his unenviable situation. The applicant said that from time to time he did indulge in grandiose thoughts or depressive thoughts. He also commented that “I feel I have multiple personalities”. Dr Younan thought that these could be described as dissociative symptoms, more likely secondary to past and current traumas.
[27] Application p 108.
The applicant saw Dr Younan on 13 September 2023.[28] At that time the applicant had relapsed into a depression with psychotic features. Dr Younan observed that the applicant had been on no psychotropic medications for a long period, this combined with a number of stressors had contributed to his relapse.
[28] Application p 109.
The applicant saw Dr Younan again on 28 February 2024[29] in a state of severe distress. He also remained silent throughout the consultation and was accompanied by a woman who cares for him who reported that the applicant says at times unreasonable things such as “I have no arms and no legs” or at other times “I am spiderman”. The friend reported that he was not complying with his medication. Dr Younan thought the applicant required in-hospital treatment. Dr Younan also stated that he was retiring soon, and the applicant should follow up for treatment with another psychiatrist.
[29] Application p 110.

Dr Tattersall

Dr Tattersall was the applicant’s general practitioner. She wrote a report dated
[30] Application p 79.
15 November 2014[30] in which she described the applicant’s situation as ‘horrible’. It was indicated that his ex-wife was schizophrenic, and she was currently dependent upon the applicant. Dr Tattersall felt that the applicant had been emotionally blackmailed by his ex-wife and been a victim of domestic violence at her hands.
Dr Tattersall explained that the applicant was very depressed regarding his situation and felt that he had to remove himself temporarily from the toxic environment or the situation would not improve. The applicant would therefore like to go back to India in the short term as his new wife was expecting their first child in January. Dr Tattersall indicated that she asked him to discuss his situation with the employer as he was concerned about his employment status.

Mr Saad

The applicant consulted with Mr Saad (psychologist) on 8 July 2015. There is a treating report to the applicant’s treating general practitioner dated 9 July 2015.[31] At that stage
[31] Application p 80.
Mr Saad understood that the applicant was unemployed owing to complications relating to his family situation as well as suffering from a major depression.
Mr Saad recounted a difficult history since the applicant had arrived in Australia in 2007. The applicant had struggled to find appropriate work and was forced to reside with his brother-in-law who was verbally and physically abusive towards the applicant’s wife. The applicant’s wife was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and she continued to be on medication at that stage and shared care of the 10-year old son.
Mr Saad said that the applicant had presented with a range of distressing symptoms, his mood was chronically low, and he felt a profound sense of hopelessness regarding his future. He had entertained suicidal thoughts but didn’t have any active intent or plans to act on these thoughts. Mr Saad said that the applicant’s depression had commenced in 2008 and understood that there had been a difficult upbringing with a physically abusive father.
Mr Saad opined that the applicant presented with a major depressive disorder, with recurrent and severe intensity with melancholic features. Mr Saad thought the applicant would require intensive intervention focused initially on symptom management together with cognitive behavioural treatment.
Mr Saad wrote a further report dated 28 September 2015[32] where Mr Saad thought the applicant continued to suffer from a major depressive disorder of severe intensity with melancholic features. He suggested that the applicant needed ongoing psychological treatment.
[32] Application p 82.
On 15 January 2016 Mr Saad wrote again to the applicant’s treating general practitioner.[33] At this stage Mr Saad thought that the applicant’s mental state had stabilised at the end of last year. In the session of that day, the applicant had reported feeling suicidal since December and had attempted to take his life by cutting his wrists with a razor blade. The applicant was experiencing severe depression with strong feelings of worthlessness and failure. Mr Saad expressed concern that the applicant was developing a bipolar or psychotic illness and had reported increased periods of hypersexuality and disinhibited behaviour, for example telling his wife he “wants to have sex with her sister”. He has also had suspicious thoughts regarding his wife’s infidelity who lived in India.
[33] Application p 84.
Mr Saad wrote a further report dated 30 April 2019 to St George Hospital Kogarah. In that report he said that the applicant had been previously diagnosed with schizophrenia and continued to be under the care of Dr Younan. He had been under an enormous level of stress following the recent arrival of his wife and his 4-year old son from India. There was also increasing financial pressure. When he reviewed the applicant that day, he took a history of the applicant consuming cocaine almost daily for the past three weeks averaging $1,400 a week in expense. He had been financing his cocaine use by getting loans from family members in India, who had been sending him sums of money.
Mr Saad expressed extreme concern about the applicant’s immediate welfare and persuaded him to attend the emergency department so that he could be medically reviewed and stabilised. The applicant reported that the main reason he had not been able to cease his cocaine use was that he experiences suicidal ideation and starts to get persecutory thoughts regarding his wife’s infidelity. He denied experiencing homicidal ideation between his wife or child but nevertheless Mr Saad was concerned about his mental health given the volume of frequency of cocaine use. Mr Saad requested review to assist the applicant in the “state of crisis”.

Dr Mahadev

Dr Mahadev is the applicant’s treating general practitioner from the Kogarah Railway Medical Centre. Dr Mahadev has written a report dated 14 December 2023 to the State Insurance Regulatory Authority.[34] Dr Mahadev said that the applicant suffered from mental illness and depression and schizophrenia which was related to his work. He described that the employer failed to consider his leave request and unfairly terminated his employment during his illness thus causing his permanent mental illness.
[34] Application p 111.
In relation to the late submission of his workers compensation claim, Dr Mahadev explained that the applicant was mentally ill due to schizophrenia and was cognitively unable to understand the claim lodgement process. Other matters which complicated his situation was that his wife had breast cancer, he was unable to leave India due to a COVID-19 lockdown for two years, in 2022 he had to undergo a mechanical mitral valve replacement and his wife had cut her left thumb requiring microsurgery at Sydney Hand Hospital in circumstances where the applicant was required to look after his two children.

Northern Beaches Mental Health Team

An emergency department assessment took place on 25 November 2014[35] where the applicant presented with depressive symptoms, he felt overwhelmed about his current circumstances and responsibilities. He explained at that time that he felt he couldn’t go on, so he presented to Manly Hospital. The history explains that the applicant needs to take leave without pay when his wife is not well which put him under financial stress.
[35] Application p 113.

It should be observed that there is little reference to any work related problems in the treating notes for the attendance at Manly Hospital. There is an entry in the discharge referral where there is an indication that the applicant had taken extended leave with a medical certificate however has been pressured by his employer to return or resign.[36] A further entry (found at page 123 of the Application) whilst the applicant was currently on leave from work to care for his ex-wife and received a three-month medical certificate, work was putting pressure on the client to resign if unable to work. At that time, it was observed the applicant was receiving Newstart allowance and his ex-wife was receiving a disability pension.
[36] Application p 118.
In a further undated entry[37] the applicant reported to a social worker that he went back to his workplace a couple of days ago for a disciplinary meeting after he had been given a medical certificate for three months off work. The applicant said the employer would not accept this and asked him to resign and they would offer him some casual work. The applicant explained that he had contacted his union, and they had said the employer was within their rights to terminate him as he had only been there for a month or so. The applicant then went on to explain that his main worry at the moment was his son and follow-up plans for him.
[37] Application p 132
In a mental health progress note, appearing to be dated 5 December 2014 with social worker Victor Syquia in a telephone call,[38] the applicant attributed his feelings of depression to ongoing issues at home, care of burnout with his son and wife and his own deteriorating physical and mental health. The applicant also requested a support letter from the Acute Care team to support with issues regarding his employment and the applicant reported that his current employers were looking to terminate him due to poor attendance at his current job.
[38] Application p 134.

Treating notes Dee Why Medical Centre

The treating notes from Dee Why Medical Centre have been provided. These notes appear to commence when the applicant moved to Dee Why in preparation for his employment with the respondent.
On 3 November 2014 the applicant presented to Dr Tattersall[39] reporting that he was still living with his ex-wife and stayed with her because she has schizophrenia and gets acute psychotic episodes. The applicant had just moved from South Sydney to work at Mona Vale Hospital and had a new wife in India who was pregnant. He was feeling very depressed and had suicidal thoughts. The applicant reported that he had seen a psychologist but not since 2011.[40]
[39] Application p 149.
[40] This is not accurate.
On 15 November 2014[41] the applicant presented as still depressed but had no change in his current situation. He was thinking about going to India to see his wife and removing himself from the situation.
[41] Application p 148.
On 17 November 2014 the applicant reported that he had been assaulted by his ex-wife the preceding day. He was feeling depressed and had a constant headache. He had thoughts of ending it all but would not act on it. The applicant said that he had spoken to work briefly but not at length about it.
On 20 November 2014[42] the applicant reported that work was going to give him some leave, and he requested a medical certificate. At that stage the applicant was still living with his ex-wife, there was no abuse, but she had stolen his passport.
[42] Application p 147.

Dr Mahadev treating notes

The treating notes form Dr Mahadev’s clinic, Kogarah Railway Medical Centre, have helpfully been annexed to the Application commencing at page 151. I was not taken through these treating notes in the hearing however have taken the time to read them. There do not appear to be any relevant histories that assist in the determination of this case save for an entry on 10 December 2014[43] where the applicant reported that he had lost a job with New South Wales Health as a result of having to care for his wife. He felt more depressed as a result of the job loss and recently felt suicidal.
[43] Application p 155.
Whilst the entries disclose symptomatology regarding depression, it is not until
[44] Application p 161.
18 January 2016[44] that the applicant reports feelings of delusion and strange thoughts.
The treating notes on 16 February 2016 report that the applicant has been diagnosed with schizophrenia after seeing Dr Younan on 11 January 2016. The treating notes thereafter refer to his difficulties experienced arising from the symptoms he suffers relating to his diagnosis.

Noman Masood

Mr Masood has provided a statement.[45] Mr Masood’s statement says that the applicant had been treated fairly and in accordance with the respondent’s policies and procedures.
[45] Late documents dated 10 July 2025 p 4.
Mr Masood puts in issue much of the evidence raised by the applicant and denies comments such as saying that “you just started working here and you’re already taking time off” and further that “I know what happens with wives in India”.
In addition to denying what is asserted by the applicant in that interaction, Mr Masood states that the applicant never cried in his presence or showed any signs of distress in any meeting with him. The statement denies all allegations that the applicant makes including speaking with a raised voice or being rude to the applicant. In addition, he denies putting pressure on the applicant to make a decision whether to work part-time or resign, however he probably said that he could take a week to do that. Mr Masood clearly denies saying “higher religious principles” and further that there is a blacklist in relation to working in a pharmacy.
On observation, it appears that nearly every part of the applicant’s evidence is put in dispute by Mr Masood.

SUBMISSIONS CONSIDERED

Applicant’s submissions

The applicant’s case is that [CNN] suffered a psychiatric injury in the nature of an aggravation, exacerbation or deterioration of his pre-existing condition.[46]
[46] Notice of Claim, application page 34.
The applicant submitted that the treating medical notes, when one looks at the medication prescribed for the applicant, clearly support his claim of injury with the respondent in 2014. Dr Nicola, from the Ashton Medical Practice[47] prescribed Avanza during the period she treated him in 2012 and 2013.
[47] Application p 191.
The applicant submitted that the reduction in dose in August 2014 is a significant matter because it is consistent with an improvement in the applicant’s mental health condition at that time to which he has given account. To make this clear, I was referred to the November 2013 prescription which was 45mg which was then reduced to 30mg.
I must say for this submission to have any significant force, in the context of long term psychological distress, medical opinion to this effect would be needed.
The applicant’s submissions also refer to an improvement in his mental health following his time when he returned from India. The applicant says in his statement that it was beneficial being away from his ex-wife and being able to spend time with [CIZ].
The applicant says that this is good evidence that whatever legacy there was of a pre-existing condition has been removed. The applicant then received the written offer of employment and felt thrilled that his dream had come true with such an offer of employment. He then commenced employment on 15 September 2014.
Once again, it seems to me that this submission must be weighed against the reduction in stress the applicant must have felt being away from his ex-wife and not witnessing her psychological difficulties. I do not agree that this is persuasive evidence that any legacy of a pre-existing condition has been removed.
The applicant says that it is quite clear that he did take some time off work and on 7 October 2014 reported to his direct supervisor Mr Masood that he was having difficulties. There is some dispute about what occurred between the applicant and Mr Masood but what is clear is that the applicant did work for only a short period before taking time off.
Whilst there are differing recollections as to what actually occurred between the applicant and Mr Masood, it was suggested that the applicant had a genuine perception that he was being strongly criticised by Mr Masood and he reacted negatively to this. It was accepted that this perception may not have been ‘a genuine perception of what was happening at work’.[48] Nevertheless, the applicant’s state of mind then deteriorated to the extent that on
[48] See Attorney General v Kay.
3 November 2014 he was unable to work when he saw Dr Tattersall.
It is also accepted that that Dr Tattersall’s contemporaneous report does not record an accurate account of any troubles at work. The applicant says in his statement that he did not want to tell Dr Tattersall about those issues. What is clear however is that the dose of Avanza was increased from 30mg to 45mg at that time. Following that, on 26 November 2014 the applicant was self-referred to St George Community Mental Health Clinic because he was struggling.
There is then some dispute between the parties as to what occurred in relation to asking the applicant to attend a meeting, but there is no issue that the applicant was indeed called to a meeting, and the meeting was attended by Mr Adam from Human Resources and
Mr Masood. There is some dispute as to what was discussed at that meeting however what is clear is that there was some discussion about alternative arrangements or changes in how the applicant would attend work.
I was then referred to the Mental Health Unit notes of Manly Hospital[49] where there was an assessment of the applicant on 2 December 2024. At that stage, the applicant was given details for contacting Fair Work Australia and there is an entry regarding’ the employer pressuring the applicant to return to work or resign’.
[49] Application p 126.
It is suggested that this is consistent with the applicant’s evidence that there was pressure put on him to return to work or resign.
The entries after the meeting also record a deterioration in mood and mental state “secondary to situational stresses”.[50] There is also an entry in relation to what is causing this elevation and it refers to plural stressors being ex-wife who he lives with is not coping and not able to cope with a 9-year old son and then a reference is made in the following terms “client has taken extended leave with a medical certificate; however, being pressured by employer to resign or return. Client reports at times stresses becoming overwhelming and he has had suicidal ideation.”
[50] Application p 118.
The applicant submitted that the work meeting was transformative and gave rise to an aggravation that lifted the worker to a more serious state of mental anguish such that his pre-existing condition had been significantly exacerbated and/or aggravated by the actions of the employer.
In respect of the medical reports of Dr Honey, the applicant submitted that Dr Honey has a dual diagnosis of a chronic schizophrenic illness and a major depressive disorder. Dr Honey in his report does suggest that there could have been an aggravation of the psychological symptoms by the event of his dismissal, but they would have long since abated.
The applicant submitted that Dr Honey supported the proposition that employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation. That is, his condition was materially aggravated by the interaction between the applicant and Mr Masood from his perception of events.
The applicant then submitted that Dr Teoh supports the history of work issues and describes how the applicant felt unsupported by his employer and was required to attend a disciplinary meeting with his employer. Dr Teoh quite clearly concludes that the applicant’s presentation was consistent with a diagnosis of a major depression and his employment with Northern Sydney Local Health District aggravated his pre-existing psychiatric condition.
The applicant also referred to the opinion of Dr Mahadev of 4 December 2023[51] where
[51] Application p 111.
Dr Mahadev writes to State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) suggesting that the applicant’s mental illness of depression and schizophrenia were related to the applicant’s work.
The applicant submitted that it is the work situation that has put the applicant in hospital. I was also referred to some of the entries in the applicant’s statement which I have already gone through.

Respondent’s submissions

The respondent pointed out that on 13 September 2014 the applicant was offered a job as a full-time pharmacy assistant working 38 hours per week. He then commenced work with the respondent on 15 September 2014. The applicant was then off work from 7 October 2014 to 10 October 2014. The applicant explained to Mr Masood he was having difficulties with his legs but in reality, the applicant acknowledged that he was having greater difficulties with his ex-wife at home. Then by 2 November 2014 the applicant was having a hard time, he was hardly sleeping, had a poor appetite and was having difficulties with his domestic situation. The applicant then says on 3 November he couldn’t go to work, he wasn’t up to it because of depression, he contacted work and explained to them that he was depressed.
The applicant then consulted with Dr Tattersall on 3 November 2014 and was prescribed Avanza and was certified as unfit for work until 17 November. There is a clinical entry that corresponds with the attendance on Dr Tattersall on 3 November 2014.[52] The clinical note refers to the applicant having a new wife in India who is pregnant, and an 8-year old son with his first wife. At that stage the applicant was depressed, having suicidal thoughts, negative thoughts and his sleep was disturbed. Of some significance, there was no mention of any workplace interactions or difficulties or any suggestions of bullying or harassment etc. What clearly is observed at that stage is that the applicant was feeling disturbed and was having suicidal thoughts.
[52] Application p 149.
The next relevant entry is 15 November 2014[53] where there is another clinical note of
[53] Application p 148.
[54] Application p 79.
Dr Tattersall who says that the applicant’s condition hasn’t changed and there is a suggestion of him removing himself from the domestic situation and going to India. Following that consultation, Dr Tattersall actually wrote a report dated 15 November 2014[54] which goes into a greater examination of the applicant’s difficulties at that stage including his ex-wife’s schizophrenia, domestic violence and having a wife with a new child in India.
The respondent points out that once again there was no reference to anything regarding a toxic workplace or bullying and harassment as alleged and whilst there was an increase in the Avanza prescription, there is nothing to suggest it arises from any workplace interaction. The respondent points out that the difficult circumstances with the ex-wife are escalating such that on 17 November 2014 there was a clinical note[55] where the applicant was assaulted by his ex-wife. At that stage the applicant was having suicidal thoughts but would not act on it. Dr Tattersall then noted on 20 November 2024 that the applicant would be unfit for work from 18 November 2014 to 23 February 2015 due to an illness.
[55] Application p 148.
The respondent submitted in mid-November 2014 onwards there was an escalation of events that are occurring in the applicant’s home life but not in the workplace.
The respondent then referred to the Manly Hospital emergency department entries on
[56] Application p 113.
25 November 2014[56] where there is an entry regarding the applicant’s wife being violent, the applicant feeling worried about his son and him also having a pregnant wife in India. The applicant felt a lot of stress about her and his mother in India regarding financial reliance. Once again, the respondent points out that there was no entry in relation to any bullying and harassment in the workplace, indeed the applicant hasn’t worked for the respondent since 3 November because of these other stressful factors.
The respondent pointed out that any submission that the applicant hadn’t been suicidal prior to the meeting of 2 December is not made out when one looks at the discharge referral dated 25 November 2024 where the applicant’s history was taken that the applicant felt overwhelmed and suicidal that morning.
The respondent then took me to the St George Hospital Mental Health records and in particular to the entry on 28 November 2014. At that stage there had been a telephone call from the applicant requesting an appointment due to increased stress over the weekend. The stress appeared to be regarding his ex-wife and police had been called around 2.00am. The applicant expressed difficulty. He had been trying to get special benefits and was worried about his wife in India who is depressed with a difficult pregnancy and there was constant harassment from his ex-wife via text messages and things. He was also concerned about his son’s mental health.
The respondent points out that significantly there is once again nothing in this entry about workplace issues.
In respect of the entry regarding Fair Work Australia on 2 December 2014, the respondent concedes that it is clearly there however submitted that there is nothing in that entry that suggests that work was in any way causative of his condition or symptoms or that it has resulted in the deterioration or exacerbation of his symptoms.
The respondent also referred to the documentary evidence in relation to the applicant’s employment circumstances including 3 December 2014[57] wherein it is foreshadowed there is the potential termination of his employment because the applicant is unable to fulfill his contractual requirements of the role. There is also some discussion about the potential for the applicant to return to a part-time role or a temporary casual role however this was declined.
[57] Application p 60.
There is also correspondence from the applicant to the respondent dated 3 December 2014[58] wherein the applicant sets out various issues which he says are preventing him from returning to work which includes focusing on his carer responsibilities to his son and his ex-wife and that he would find it difficult to find an alternative carer at short notice. In that correspondence there is once again nothing from the applicant suggesting any difficulties with how he has been treated by the respondent. Indeed, the letter refers to the applicant suffering from major depression in relation to what appears to be those personal factors which he outlines.
[58] Application p 56.
In relation to the entries in the St George Hospital Mental Health Unit regarding the applicant’s attendance at the meeting of 4 December 2024,[59] the respondent submits that all this entry refers to is that the applicant indeed attended his workplace for a disciplinary meeting and gave them a medical certificate that the employer would not accept and asked him to resign. The applicant also provides history that he contacted the union who indicated to him that it was within the employer’s rights to terminate him.
[59] Application p 132.
What the respondent says in relation to this entry is that there is nothing there that reports anything in the nature of a toxic workplace of bullying and harassment, at best it simply recounts another issue the applicant has been dealing with in the context of something that arises out of all these unrelated stressors.
The respondent also pointed out on 5 December 2014 (coincidentally the same date as the termination letter),[60] the St George Hospital notes indicate that the applicant is once again suffering from issues at home, carer burnout and the son and the wife and his own deteriorating physical and mental health. At that stage the applicant requested a support letter relating to his issues revolving around his employment. The notes indicate that work is aware of the applicant’s depression and was happy for the writer to write correspondence to the employer to indicate that he is unable to work and happy for it to disclose those other factors including carer burnout, issues at home, and own deteriorating health.
[60] Application p 133.

In fact, a letter was prepared by a social worker consistent with that request and that is dated 5 December 2014.[61] The correspondence really, on the face of it, indicates that the applicant’s difficulties are in the context of “ongoing and significant family issues, carer stress and poor physical, social and mental health”. Once again, there was no blame put on the employer or an allegation of a toxic workplace.
[61] Application p 64.
On 6 December 2014 the applicant was discharged from the mental health unit.[62] The discharge report clearly indicates that the applicant had reported that at time stresses became overwhelming and he had had suicidal ideation, however the balance of the sentence which was drawn to my attention by the respondent says there has been “nil since Manly assessment on 25^th of the 11^th”.
[62] Application p 118.
What I infer from that entry is that the applicant had suicidal ideation when he presented to Manly Hospital but hasn’t had any suicidal ideation since that time. I observe that this is not consistent with any submission that the meeting with Mr Masood specifically aggravated the applicant’s condition.
The respondent also pointed to an email from the applicant to the employer dated
[63] Late documents p 22.
20 February 2015[63] in which the applicant suggests he wishes to accept a temporary part-time offer for a maternity position and be considered for any further permanent part-time roles that may become available. The respondent asks, why a person would want to enter into such a toxic workplace where he is bullied and harassed if the applicant’s suggestion is correct.
The respondent also referred to the resignation letter of 5 March 2015 (which is dated
5 December 2014) where the applicant offers his resignation immediately. Once again, the respondent points out that this is not consistent with a person who feels that they are bullied and harassed by their former employer.
The respondent referred to the medical evidence which includes the treating notes of psychologist, Mr Saad. When looking at those reports, it appears that the discussion outlined there focuses on the difficulties the applicant was having in relation to his ex-wife, her medical condition and consequences this has on the care for his son.
Indeed, the applicant is under the care of Mr Saad and had six sessions with him and by
28 September 2015 Mr Saad focuses on the major source of distress which was coming from his family in India, there was constant communication and the applicant felt guilty he was not able to provide for them or look after his frail mother.
Once again, the respondent points out that there was no reference to any issues occurring with the respondent’s employment. It is focused on family issues. I agree with this submission after considering the treating notes.
Likewise, the reports from the treating psychiatrist Dr Younan, also focus on the applicant’s difficulties regarding fidelity, feeling he is under surveillance and thinking people are trying to cheat him. Quite clearly, these symptoms are becoming schizophrenic and psychotic in nature which leads to a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. Significantly, Dr Younan has nothing in his reports about the workplace issues or interactions with Mr Masood causing any of these difficulties.
Mr Saad sees the applicant again in 2019, this is some five years after ceasing work with the respondent and Dr Younan takes a history[64] which once again has nothing to do with workplace factors or bullying and harassment.
[64] Application p 85.
Indeed, there was a readmission to St George Hospital on 30 April 2019 where the admitting history has also nothing to do with the applicant’s employment with the respondent.
In respect of Dr Teoh’s report, the respondent complains that Dr Teoh doesn’t deal with the question of main contributing factor, which is critical where there are other various factors which are causing the applicant’s psychological symptoms. He simply says that “employment with the respondent has aggravated the pre-existing condition”.
The respondent says what is missing is any analysis of whether it is the main contributing factor, pointing out that it is an aggravating factor is not enough to satisfy the statutory requirements. Whilst this is not fatal to the applicant’s case[65] it would have been of assistance.
Conclusion
[65] See Guthrie v Spence [2009] NSWCA 369
What is required is for the decision maker to having regard to the whole of the evidence, the issue of injury, and whether employment is the main contributing factor to the injury. That involves an evaluative process.
In submissions, the applicant’s case seemed effectively to be that there is an aggravation of his condition that puts him in hospital and then there is a further aggravation following the work meeting at Manly Hospital. The applicant suggested the difference in the hospital notes following the attendance at the meeting was that it correctly records that he was suicidal following the meeting and was not suicidal at the time of his admission. For reasons I have already outlined- I do not agree that this is an accurate reflection of the evidence as there is a note of suicidal ideation on admission.
I have some difficulty in accepting that the aggravation is what put the applicant in hospital because when I look at the self-referral to the hospital[66] there is no mention at all in relation to work. It seems implausible to me that given the disclosure of other personal information that the work factors are not discussed with the treating professionals in this case. The failure for the reporting of psychological distress arising his treatment as pleaded by the respondent.
[66] Application p 128.
Members must feel an actual persuasion or comfortable satisfaction of the existence of a fact. The Court of Appeal in Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes [2008] NSWCA 246 (Nguyen) summarised the approach as follows:
“(1) A finding that a fact exists (or existed) requires that the evidence induce, in the mind of the fact-finder, an actual persuasion that the fact does (or at the relevant time did) exist;
(2)    Where on the whole of the evidence such a feeling of actual persuasion is induced, so that the fact-finder finds that the probabilities of the fact’s Determinations 133 existence are greater than the possibilities of its non-existence, the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities may be satisfied;
(3)     Where circumstantial evidence is relied upon, it is not in general necessary that all reasonable hypotheses consistent with the nonexistence of a fact, or inconsistent with its existence, be excluded before the fact can be found; and
(4)     A rational choice between competing hypotheses, informed by a sense of actual persuasion in favour of the choice made, will support a finding, on the balance of probabilities, as to the existence of the fact in issue.” (at [55])
I do not feel a persuasion as required in this case to make the findings as sought by the applicant. I am very aware that one is always careful about treating notes and their content and that busy doctors sometime misunderstand or misrecord histories given in circumstances where the focus is on the patient’s treatment.[67] Applying the caution warned about, I am nevertheless left with the observation that the overwhelming contemporaneous reporting contained therein is of family difficulties, including a very sick ex-wife, a newly pregnant wife overseas and understandable parental concerns for a loved son. The failure for there to be recorded contemporaneous histories supporting the applicants case includes little or no history being given to Dr Tattersall, St George Health Acute Care, Dr Younan, Mr Saad, Northern Beaches Mental Health Team and a Social worker. This is a wide chasm for which I cannot find any reasonable explanation.
[67] Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227
I agree that there are some references to work issues, however I am not satisfied that this leads to a finding regarding work being the main contributing factor to the aggravation on the balance of probabilities. The test is not for the work factors ( as pleaded) just to be a contributing factor; the test is narrower for the applicant.
The respondent submits that I should accept the opinion of Dr Honey who acknowledges a chronic and severe ongoing psychological condition that has been present for many years. Dr Honey opines that employment was not the main contributing factor to any aggravation that has been suffered as there have been all these other ongoing factors in the applicant’s life. In Dr Honey’s second report, the first of these factors including the applicant’s wife being diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia and subsequent estrangement from the applicant’s second wife and children.
The respondent points out that in Dr Teoh’s second report,[68] he confirms he has now been provided with the medical records of the Ashton Medical Practice. He confirms that the applicant had been treated for various medical conditions, however, doesn’t alter his opinion.
[68] Application p 77.
Having read that report it seems apparent to me that Dr Teoh has not dealt with the question of main contributing factor. This is a significant factor against the applicant’s submissions.
I am reminded of the guidance of Deputy President Roche gave in AV v AW[69] at paragraph 78:
“The test of main contributing factor is one of causation. It involves consideration of the evidence overall. It is not purely a medical question. It involves an evaluative process considering the causal factors to the aggravation both work and non-work-related. Medical evidence to address the ultimate question is both relevant and desirable.”
[69] [2020]NSWCCPD 9
After considering this matter, it appears to me, and it is not in dispute, that the applicant has a clear pre-existing psychological condition. The condition now has been diagnosed by his treating psychiatrist as schizophrenia, a condition which Dr Honey says likely predated his employment.
The contemporaneous and treating notes of various doctors and hospitals ( as outlined in this decision) illustrate an increase in the applicant’s symptoms in late November and early December 2014, however when one looks at these entries in the contemporaneous documents contained therein, the histories provided by the applicant really do not focus on any work-related causative factors. The applicant has had significant difficulties in relation to both his wives’ mental illness, caring for his son and his own diagnosis at a later time.
Comparing the history taken by Dr Teoh, it seems that he doesn’t appear to have a complete understanding of the history in terms of the entries relating to and the significance of other factors causing the plaintiff’s condition. In the alternative, he does not engage with the necessary terms in the legislation of “main contributing factor” to the aggravation. His opinion does not assist me greatly in this determination.
I therefore am not persuaded that there is injury by way of aggravation arising out of employment or in the course of employment to make the findings as sought by the applicant. That is, I am not satisfied that employment has not been the main contributing factor to any aggravation of a pre-existing psychological condition the applicant may have experienced in late November, early December 2014 or otherwise.
In those circumstances, I cannot find in favour of the applicant on the threshold issue of injury. In those circumstances it is not necessary nor appropriate to determine the other issues in dispute.

De-identification of the applicant and his family

Section 58(1)(a) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act) requires the Commission to publish details of its decisions in accordance with the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021. Rule 131(1) provides that subject to r 132 details of a decision are to be published. Rule 132 provides for the de-identification or redaction of publishable decisions.
Pursuant to r 132(4) regard is to be given to the following matters when considering de-identification:
(a)     the objects of the PIC Act and enabling legislation and, in particular, the object that the Commission be open and transparent about its processes;
(b)     the prevention of prejudice to the proper administration of justice;
(c)     the safety, health and wellbeing of a person affected or named by the publishable decision;
(d)     the views of any other party to the proceedings, and
(e)     whether it is necessary in the public interest for the direction to be given and whether the public interest in giving the direction significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice
By way of submissions dated 5 October 2025, the applicant has requested redaction of the names of himself, and his family is for the safety, health and wellbeing of those persons. The applicant identified that highly sensitive medical information is contained in the material relied on by each of the parties in the proceedings. It was submitted that given the applicant’s vulnerable mental health, the safety, health and wellbeing of the applicant and his family outweighs any prejudice to the proper administration of justice occasioned by the names of the applicant and his family being redacted from all of the publishable decision before it is published. It was submitted that the names of the applicant and his family being redacted does not prevent the Commission from performing the objects of the PIC Act.
I agree with the submissions made by the applicant in relation to the sensitive medical information that was ventilated in both the hearing and in this decision. I therefore direct that the name of the applicant and his family members is to be redacted before publication of this decision.

[2025] NSWPIC 526

4 November 2025