Cocks v Victorian WorkCover Authority
[2024] VCC 195
•20 February 2024 (ex tempore)
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| SERIOUS INJURY LIST |
Case No. CI-23-03416
| MATTHEW STUART COCKS | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE FRAATZ | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 19 and 20 February 2024 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 20 February 2024 (ex tempore) | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Cocks v Victorian WorkCover Authority | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 195 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
Subject: ACCIDENT COMPENSATION
Catchwords: Serious injury – psychiatric injury – adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression – pain and suffering – loss of earnings – range – severity
Legislation Cited: Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic)
Cases Cited: Mobilio v Balliotis [1998] 3 VR 833; Advanced Wire & Cable v Abdulle [2009] VSCA 170; Johns v Oaktech Pty Ltd [2020] VSCA 10; Papamanos v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] VSCA 167; Yirga-Denbu v Victorian WorkCover Authority (2018) 57 VR 545; Richter v Driscoll (2016) 51 VR 95; Harris v DJD Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 188; Acir v Frosster Pty Ltd [2009] VSCA 454; Turner v Love (1995) 21 MVR 314
Judgment: Leave granted to commence proceedings for pain and suffering and pecuniary loss damages.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr J B Richards KC with Mr S J Carson | Arnold Thomas Becker |
| For the Defendant | Ms K M Manning | Lander & Rogers |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1The plaintiff, Matthew Cocks, alleges that he sustained psychiatric injury arising out of or during the course of his employment with the State of Victoria (Victoria Police) as a detective from 1988 until 2 July 2022.
2Mr Cocks seeks leave to bring common law proceedings pursuant to s335 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (“the Act”) for severe mental or permanent severe behavioural disturbance or disorder in accordance with the narrative test set out in s325(2)(b) and (d) of the Act, and the principles in Mobilio v Balliotis.[1] He relies upon the condition of an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depression as satisfying paragraph (c) of the relevant definition of “serious injury”.
[1][1998] 3 VR 833
3The application was made in respect of both pain and suffering damages and pecuniary loss damages.
4For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied Mr Cocks ought be granted leave under s335 of the Act to bring common law proceedings to recover damages for loss of earnings as a consequence of a psychiatric injury sustained in the course of his employment.
5It is agreed that a person who satisfies the loss of earning capacity requirements of s325 of the Act is also entitled to bring proceedings for the recovery of damages for both pecuniary loss and pain and suffering damages.[2]
[2] Advanced Wire & Cable v Abdulle [2009] VSCA 170 at paragraph [63]
6On the hearing of the application, the plaintiff relied upon affidavits:
(a) sworn by him on 20 February 2023 and 8 February 2024, and limited oral evidence-in-chief adduced with leave of the Court; and
(b) of his wife, Jacqueline Cocks, and a friend, Phillip Digiusto, both sworn on 13 February 2024.
7The plaintiff was the only witness to give viva voce evidence. No other witnesses were required by the parties for cross-examination.
8Ms Manning, counsel for Victoria WorkCover Authority (“the VWA”), conceded that whilst his evidence was guarded at times, Mr Cocks’ credit is not in issue. I considered Mr Cocks to be an honest but careful witness, who did, at times, require rephrasing of questions in cross-examination that, at least to his mind, were too general in nature before making concessions. He consistently made appropriate concessions. Accordingly, I may rely upon his evidence as the consequences of his injury, and in particular, I accept his evidence as to his attempts at engaging in suitable employment since his early retirement from Victoria Police on medical grounds.
9The issues in dispute between the parties are relevantly confined.
10This is a “range case” where the VWA submits that Mr Cocks has failed to discharge his burden in terms of establishing at least 40 per cent loss of earnings.
11There is no dispute that Mr Cocks:
(a) suffered a compensable injury;
(b) suffers from a work-related Adjustment Disorder with Depression and Anxiety;
(c) is receiving appropriate treatment for his injury, which has not involved hospitalisation or referral to a treating psychiatrist. It comprises care from his general practitioner and psychologist, and antidepressant medication on a daily basis, which does not always control his symptoms if he is having a bad day;
(d) suffers from a permanent condition;
(e) is incapacitated for his previous work at Victoria Police, which he was in receipt of earnings of approximately $159,000 per annum; and
(f) does not suffer from any relevant pre-existing health conditions.
12The main issue in the case is whether Mr Cocks satisfies the loss of earnings test. More generally, having regard to what he has retained, and the extent of the consequences of his condition, whether his injury is “severe”.
13The legal principles in applications of this type are well known and not in dispute. Mr Cocks bears the onus of demonstrating that his psychological condition is permanent, the extent of his pecuniary loss and that the consequences to him are “severe”.
14As referred to recently by the Court of Appeal in Johns v Oaktech Pty Ltd,[3] in “serious injury” applications, the credit of the applicant is of great importance. As stated earlier, there are no credit issues. I regard the plaintiff as being an honest and accurate witness, and I accept both his oral evidence and what is contained in his affidavits. His evidence was also corroborated by the affidavits from his wife and his friend, Mr Digiusto.
[3][2020] VSCA 10
15I was referred to the decision of Papamanos v Commonwealth Bank of Australia.[4] The consequences identified by the Court of Appeal, whilst indicators, are not prerequisites for a finding of severity, having regard to the range of possible mental conditions, including those that do not come before the Court.
[4][2014] VSCA 167
16To satisfy the requisite threshold in relation to pecuniary loss, I must be satisfied that Mr Cocks has suffered a permanent loss of earning capacity of 40 per cent or more, as set out in ss325(2)(e), (f), and (g) of the Act.
17The measure of the claimed loss of earning capacity requires a comparison of two matters:
(a) firstly, the gross income the plaintiff is earning, or is capable of earning, in suitable employment at the date of the hearing (“after-injury” earnings);
(b) secondly, the gross income that the plaintiff was earning, or was capable of earning, “during that part of the period within three years before and three years after the injury as most fairly reflects the worker's earning capacity had the injury not occurred” (“without injury” earnings).[5]
[5] Yirga-Denbu v Victorian WorkCover Authority (2018) 57 VR 545 at paragraph [70]
18I am required to assess the plaintiff's capacity for employment as at the date of the hearing of this application.[6] I must also consider whether Mr Cocks has any realistic capacity to return to full-time or other employment which might otherwise be suitable, having regard to his age, education, skills, work experience or other matters.[7]
[6] See s325(2)(e)(i) of the Act
[7] Richter v Driscoll (2016) 51 VR 95; Harris v DJD Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 188
19By way of background, the claim is made in the context of alleged bullying and victimisation of Mr Cocks at work, in particular, during the period from 2012 to January 2021. That his injury is compensable is not in issue, and Mr Cocks was not challenged about the various factual matters he set out in his first affidavit, sworn 20 February 2023 at paragraphs 9 through to 68.
20Mr Cocks first went off work in January 2021, initially taking long-service leave, and he later accessed other types of leave. He did not lodge a WorkCover claim. He has not returned to work since that time.
21In his first affidavit, Mr Cocks states:
“… The Police Medical Officer declared I was unfit to return to duty and initiated Ill Health retirement procedures. That was and is upsetting to me, but I have had to accept that there is no way I would now be able to discharge my duties as a police officer. My employment formally ended on 2nd July 2022.
Despite having been off work for some time now, I am well aware that my mental state is still very fragile. I still have very disturbing memories, flashbacks, and nightmares about what happened to me. I still don’t understand why I became singled out and hounded. It remains deeply upsetting and disturbing that I was treated the way I was.
…
I think about what I might yet be able to do in the future. I never intended or expected to be out of work at my age. It is upsetting to be this way and I would be doing something more constructive with my time if I could. I am essentially ‘treading water’. I try to keep busy building/fixing fences around my property. I have had a go at driving a tip truck belonging to a friend to see if that was something I might still be able to do. I was able to drive the truck, but don’t feel I would be able to cope with the pressures of working subject to schedules or time pressures.”[8]
[8] Plaintiff’s Amended Court Book (“PCB”) 28, paragraphs [78], [79] and [81]
22In Mr Cocks’ second affidavit, as to his current condition, he states as follows:
“… I continue to feel very anxious and depressed almost all of the time. I have not been able to shake free of these feelings despite the passage of time. I fear that this will be my ‘lot’ for the rest of my life.
…
I now fear that I wouldn’t cope in a real-world job where I had to be productive and work to set days or hours. I wouldn’t be in position to commit to set days or hours with my mental state being as precarious as it is. I say this as I still have a few days and/or parts of days each week where I simply do not cope and I pretty much shut myself away from the world. I find it hard to simply be with or talk to others when I am like this. Realistically, there is no way that I could function in some sort of employment when I am in this state.”[9]
[9] PCB 34-35, paragraphs [12] and [15]
23Mr Cocks has resorted to alcohol. His evidence, which I accept, is that despite periods of improved mood and function, he feels as though his condition is worse now than it was when he first left the Victoria Police. He drinks more now. His evidence in Court was, “I don’t feel as though I’ve got any better, that’s for sure”.[10]
[10] Transcript (“T”) 66, Lines (“L”) 28-29
24His wife, Jacqueline Cocks’ unchallenged evidence included the following:
“Towards the end of my husband’s time with Victoria Police he was clearly suffering significantly. He would come home from work visibly upset and would remain upset for hours. I could see that he was frequently very agitated.
He started to withdraw a lot from the world. He would sit alone and not talk to family members. He changed as a person.
Despite my husband having been off work for some time now, he doesn’t seem to me to have improved. He has remained very highly strung and clearly doesn’t get much enjoyment out of life. He is a different person to who he was.
I also find that my husband has also lost his ability to tolerate stress or pressure. He was once a very confident man but now he is easily upset. He cannot deal with pressure very well at all. Again, this is not the man that he used to be.
I also find that over the last few years my husband has started drinking at home on most nights and generally on his own. Prior to the incidents at work, he would enjoy a drink socially with friends and colleagues but now I find that he sometimes stays up all night drinking until I wake up and prompt him to come to bed. This has caused a great tension within our marriage.
In summary, as a wife it has been very upsetting to stand by and see how much my husband suffered and changed as a Police Officer. The fact that he hasn’t been able to improve since ceasing work has also been very upsetting for both of us.”[11]
[11] Affidavit sworn 13 February 2024: PCB 39-40, paragraphs [7] to [12]
25A great deal of argument and cross-examination was focused on the plaintiff's motivation to work, being in receipt of a substantial indexed pension of 75 per cent of his wage at the end of his employment.
26The medico-legal evidence as to Mr Cocks’ retained capacity for employment is the starting point when considering this issue.
27Associate Professor Peter Doherty, consultant psychiatrist, in his report of 19 August 2023, opines that although Mr Cocks could not return to policing, his condition of Adjustment Disorder is mild. I accept Mr Richards' submission that this is not Mr Cocks' experience. Mr Cocks finds his own psychological state fragile and precarious.[12] Several days a week he barely copes.
[12] Defendant’s Court Book (“DCB”) 12
28In Associate Professor Doherty's opinion, Mr Cocks’ current dose of Pristiq 200 milligrams daily is relatively high. In his view, this medication is appropriate and adequate. This sits uncomfortably with his opinion that Mr Cocks’ Adjustment Disorder is mild in its severity.
29The report of Associate Professor Abdul Khalid, consultant psychiatrist, of 9 January 2024, prepared at the request of the plaintiff's solicitors, includes the opinion that, “the diagnosis is of a chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood”. In his view, it is permanent. Further, Associate Professor Khalid states that Mr Cocks’ injuries significantly affect his capacity for work due to his chronic symptoms. He does not consider that Mr Cocks has a current work capacity for pre-injury duties or suitable employment.[13]
[13] PCB 48-49
30The treating doctors’ reports - and I will refer to these in more detail later - support the plaintiff's application, in that the opinions are to the effect that Mr Cocks suffers from a permanent condition which precludes him from engaging in his previous employment as a detective senior sergeant with Victoria Police.
31A vocational assessment prepared by Erin Williams, vocational assessment specialist, dated 10 January 2024, records her opinions as follows:
“Mr Cocks has amassed transferrable skills and experience over his time in the police force. However, due to the effect of his workplace injuries, he is unable to utilise these skills without the risk of aggravation or deterioration of his injuries.
The challenge for Mr Cocks, should he decide to come out of retirement in the future, is to obtain a role in the open labour market that he can perform without exacerbating or aggravating his psychiatric symptoms.
…
Mr Cocks stated that his psychiatric symptoms reduce his motivation and affect his capacity to participate in social and recreational activities.
Should Mr Cocks decide to return to paid employment in the future, his anxiety could lead to increased absenteeism as he would likely find it challenging to cope with work-related stressors. Poor motivation can contribute to a lack of commitment, which can result in taking unplanned leave and failure to meet rostered days and hours.
With his current reported psychiatric symptoms, it is my opinion that his capacity to attend any full-time employment on a consistent and reliable basis is unlikely. His productivity in the workplace will also be reduced due to the effects of his anxiety, low mood, sleep disturbance, fatigue, poor memory, and poor concentration.
Subsequently, if Mr Cocks were to achieve employment without a supportive employer, flexibility in his hours, and a suitable role and work environment, it is likely to exacerbate his symptoms, and his reliability in attending would further reduce resulting in absenteeism and likely job loss.
…
Employment requires consistent, reliable, and permanent attendance and the ability to perform all job responsibilities without posing a risk to oneself or others. It demands the capability to handle uncertainty and unexpected situations with a high level of reliability. Placing someone such as Mr Cocks in a situation where those criteria cannot be met is unfair and potentially dangerous for him and any prospective employer.
Therefore, while he has proven the ability to attend irregular unpaid work for a friend in an understanding and supportive environment, this cannot be considered ‘suitable employment’ as it is unlikely that he would have the realistic capacity or motivation to meet the inherent requirements of the job in a paid role in the open labour market due to his psychological symptoms and fatigue, attend the workplace reliably and consistently or become a settled member of the workplace.
Taking this into consideration, and for the many reasons considered and discussed in the body of this report, I do not believe that Mr Cocks has any realistic ability of ‘suitable employment’ now or in the foreseeable future. It is highly probable that he has come to the end of his working life.”[14]
[14] PCB 60-62
32I accept that opinion.
33Mr Cocks’ history recorded by Ms Williams that he “is retired and has no desire for regular work”[15] is unclear as to whether that would have been the case anyway but for his injury. On one reasonable interpretation urged upon me by Ms Manning, that history is unfavourable to the plaintiff because it indicates that Mr Cocks has simply chosen not to exercise a capacity for work.
[15] PCB 58
34On the other hand, her opinion that, “due to the effect of his workplace injuries, he is unable to utilise his transferrable skills and experience without the risk of aggravation or deterioration of his injuries” tends to the other conclusion. Mr Cocks denied in the witness box that he has simply chosen not to work.
35Whilst this evidence might go either way, it is likely to be further explored at any later damages trial. It is not in dispute that Mr Cocks was certified in December 2021 as unfit for operational duties because of his work-related psychological condition. His efforts to return to work in 2021 deposed to in his affidavits satisfy me that this was not voluntary.
36Mr Cocks ceased work at age 53, and I accept his evidence that he never intended or expected to be out of work at his age; it is upsetting for him to be this way, and he would be doing something more constructive with his time if he could.[16]
[16] PCB 29-30
37The requirements in the Act are also unequivocal. The plaintiff must establish a 40 per cent or more loss of earning capacity. I carefully observed Mr Cocks in the witness box and have considered all of the evidence. I accept Mr Cocks’ evidence that:
(a) he is currently exercising one to two days’ work capacity;
(b) his recent attempt in early 2023 to work three days a week over a period of a couple of weeks led to an increase in his symptoms, including a deterioration of his mental health and eight months off work; and
(c) realistically, there is no way he could function in employment when he is in a state where he is not coping, which he experiences a few days and/or parts of days each week.
38I also accept Phillip Digiusto’s unchallenged evidence, as follows:
“Matt comes and helps me from time to time with some driving work using my trucks and excavator machinery for my business. He does not get paid and he can come and go as he wishes. There are some days where he comes in the morning and if he is not feeling good, he can leave whenever he needs to.
Some weeks, he comes and helps me out once or twice a week but there are other weeks where he tells me that he needs a bit of time to have his own space and he is unable to deal with coming in.”[17]
[17] PCB 37
39I readily accept that a particular plaintiff in his 50s in receipt of a significant pension, who is not working, might not necessarily have established the relevant loss of earning threshold. That plaintiff, with very substantial unexercised work capacity, may not satisfy the statutory test. I would need clear evidence in this proceeding, however, that Mr Cocks has deliberately failed to exercise a residual capacity for work. I am not satisfied that there is such evidence here.
40Mr Cocks has not worked since age 53 other than in protected employment for up to two days a week. His attempts to return to work, initially at Victoria Police, later to increase his truck driving to three days a week, have been unsuccessful.
41The comparison between “without injury” and “after injury” earnings should accord with the observations of Justice J Forrest in Acir v Frosster Pty Ltd,[18] in that instance considering the analogue provision in the Accident Compensation Act 1985:
“… [The comparison] is a gateway provision which either precludes or permits a worker to bring a claim for damages for the loss of earning capacity. It is a part of the serious injury process, not that of assessment of damages. It does not involve any determination (interim or final) of actual loss of earning capacity sustained by the worker.”
[18] [2009] VSCA 454 at paragraph [171]
42I find there is no full-time employment for which the plaintiff is suitable when regard is had to the definition of “suitable employment”. While Associate Professor Doherty expressed a view that the plaintiff was not totally and permanently incapacitated for all forms of employment, his opinion was qualified:
“He has a capacity for work at the present time. The worker has been undertaking some bookkeeping work. He has been checking out d[r]iving a truck. He is thinking through his options. He has some interest in truck driving.
The psychiatric symptoms are mild and would not cause a significant limitation on his capacity to be reliable and consistent.
He is drinking more alcohol now, in what is considered excessive quantities. … .”[19]
[19] DCB 12
43I find that the unquantified capacity Associate Professor Doherty refers to resolves on the evidence overall, at best, into two inconsistent days of unpaid manual or administrative work in a supportive, flexible environment (currently with a friend and in his wife’s business). Significant doubt attends the proposition that this theoretical capacity could be exercised in the real world.
44It is a matter of judgment of the Court as to how many hours the plaintiff is fit to work in the context of an assessment required to apply a gateway provision. I must make a determination as to incapacity after a consideration of the whole of the evidence.[20]
[20] Yirga-Denbu v Victorian WorkCover Authority (supra) at paragraph [89]
45I am required to take a “real world” approach to the plaintiff's employment capacity. It requires more than a physical capacity to engage in a task or tasks.[21]
[21] Richter v Driscoll (supra)
46Applying that approach to my assessment of the plaintiff's employment capacity, I find that Mr Cocks has suffered at least a 40 per cent reduction in his earning capacity, which is sufficient to dispose of the application in his favour.
47Bearing in mind all of the above, I find the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof in terms of establishing a greater than 40 per cent loss of earning capacity.
48Should it be necessary to do so, I also find that the pain and suffering consequences to Mr Cocks are severe, notwithstanding he has not been hospitalised, expressed suicidal ideation, or been referred to a psychiatrist.
49In terms of the treatment the plaintiff received, the evidence was as follows.
50The general practitioner, Dr Matthew Reid, was consulted initially in 2016, and most recently in August 2022. In his report of 22 August 2022, Dr Reid diagnoses anxiety and depression in relation to workplace bullying. In his opinion, the conditions were stable, permanent, and there was ongoing treatment with medication and psychology indicated. He states Mr Cocks had to retire early due to these conditions. Since retiring, his ability to engage with social recreation and domestic activities has improved. In terms of work capacity, there is no other work he could perform within his specific areas of expertise. He confirmed his diagnosis in his later report of October 2023, which did not express any further opinion as to work capacity.
51Due to the minimalist nature of Dr Reid's reporting, I place limited weight on his opinions.
52Psychologist, Ms Lebecca Jelicic, consulted with Mr Cocks on fourteen occasions between February 2022 and July 2022, She diagnosed persistent Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and its consequences, which include ongoing leave of absence from a longstanding career and meaningful work, and, more recently, early retirement.
53Although Ms Jelicic noted some improved engagement and mood, as at the last time she saw Mr Cocks in 2022, she was unable to comment on the formal stabilisation of Mr Cocks’ symptoms as, in her view, it was outside of the scope of the service she provided. In this regard, she would defer to a formal diagnostic assessment from an appropriate psychiatrist.
54The current treating psychologist from May 2023, Mr Vijay Singh, diagnosed an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. In his opinion, “at this time, based on his current symptoms, Mr Cocks would likely experience difficulty engaging in occupations that relate specifically to policing. I am unable to comment on his ability to perform other types of work.”[22]
[22]DCB 72
55Mr Singh expressed the view that he considered further opinions requested of him were beyond the scope of his role, which was to provide psychological treatment for Mr Cocks’ mental health.[23]
[23] PCB 72
56As mentioned earlier, Mr Cocks is also taking daily antidepressant medication, Pristiq, in the amount of 200 milligrams.
57The consequences of a psychiatric injury for an injured person need not necessarily be confined to symptoms which it directly produces. Those consequences may include the need for treatment, its type and frequency, and any past or future side effects it might have, including the side effects of medication used to relieve symptoms of the psychiatric condition.[24]
[24] Turner v Love (1995) 21 MVR 314 at paragraphs [323]-[324]
58The side effects Mr Cocks experiences include excessive sweating, insomnia, lack of sex drive, impotency, dizziness, drowsiness, and a dry mouth. These are matters of some significance.
59Further, Mr Cocks has not worked in his pre-injury employment as a consequence of his psychiatric injury since January 2021.
60In a letter to Dr Reid dated 21 December 2021, the Victoria Police Medical Officer, Dr Lanka Wijewardena, certified Mr Cocks as permanently unsuitable for operational duties.[25]
[25] DCB 245
61All of the treating doctors and those who examined him for this proceeding accept Mr Cocks cannot return to his pre-injury employment.
62When his counsel, Mr Richards KC, asked him, “what is it about your current state of mind and body that prevents you from working beyond the one or two irregular hours that you work at the present time”, Mr Cocks’ response was:
“Just because my anxiety levels increase. Like, after about two days, even in the two days, they start to increase. And then after any longer than that, I - it gets to a point where it’s quite - I feel - feel quite ill. Like, I start the day with butterflies; that’s probably the good anxiety. And then once it gets - steps up it - I get to the stage where I feel quite ill.”[26]
[26] T65, L12-21
63Mr Cocks referred to having good days and bad days, and went on to explain:
“A bad day is I struggle to get out of bed. I have to sit there and almost yell at myself to be able to get out of bed. And once I do and make the bed I can slowly start moving, but that’s generally 11 or 12 o’clock. And then once I start moving the feelings subside a little bit, but not totally.”[27]
[27] T67, L1-6
64Other consequences of the plaintiff's psychiatric injury upon which I rely are set out in the medical reports and his affidavits. Mr Cocks was not seriously challenged on these consequences.
65They were generally consistent and include:
(a) his permanent fragile mental state;
(b) alcohol abuse, noting his concession that, at certain times, Mr Cocks has been able to control this;
(c) bad days when he struggles to get out of bed;
(d) sleep interruption. His psychologist, Ms Jelicic, has recognised the diagnosis of clinical insomnia;
(e) the necessity for relatively high doses of antidepressant medication and the side effects referred to above; and
(f) the necessity for ongoing treatment from a psychologist.
66Mr Cocks has retained the ability to leave his home, engage with family and friends to some extent, and do some travelling. I accept the application is perhaps finely balanced as to pain and suffering consequences. I am not persuaded that the consequences to him are anything other than severe when considered with his loss of work capacity.
67In my view, Mr Cocks’ loss of capacity from someone who was a high-functioning individual as a detective senior sergeant of police to someone who struggles to hold down the manual task of driving a tip truck for one or two days a week alone, and in combination with the other consequences referred to above, constitutes a “severe” consequence to him, and the narrative test is satisfied.
68Leave is granted to the plaintiff to commence proceedings for pain and suffering and pecuniary loss damages in respect of injuries suffered in the course of his employment with the State of Victoria.
69I will hear the parties as to final orders including costs.
- - -
0
8
0