Gladman v Q-Comp
[2010] QMC 13
•21 September 2010
MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Gladman v Q-COMP [2010] QMC 13
PARTIES:
SARAH GLADMAN
(appellant)
v
Q-COMP
(respondent)
FILE NO/S:
MAG202354/09(2)
DIVISION:
Industrial Magistrates Court
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against decision of Q-COMP
ORIGINATING COURT:
Industrial Magistrates Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
21 September 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
19 July 2010, 20 July 2010, 21 July 2010
MAGISTRATE:
Callaghan CJ
ORDER:
Pursuant to section 558(1)(c) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 the decision of Q-Comp of 2 October 2009 is set aside and the decision that the Insurer is to accept the Appellant’s application for compensation is substituted for it.
CATCHWORDS:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – WORKERS COMPENSATION – INJURY - APPEAL AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION – Q-COMP – whether psychiatric and/or psychological disorders are injuries
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32
COUNSEL:
DJ Murphy for the appellant
SP Gray for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Richardson & Lyons for the appellant
Respondent on their own behalf
In the early part of February 2008 the Appellant, Sarah Gladman, commenced employment with Brisbane Concrete Pumping Meales Pty Ltd (“Brisbane Concrete Pumping”). Shortly thereafter she came to the attention of Hugh Woolcock, a concrete pump operator also employed by Brisbane Concrete Pumping. He sent her flowers shortly after Valentine’s Day, after having had a conversation with her concerning her not receiving any flowers for Valentine’s Day. Thereafter he called her on numerous occasions. His wife became aware of his interest in her. Ms Gladman then, in April 2008, commenced to receive numerous text messages which were abusive in their content and which culminated in two text messages in late May or early June which suggested that the sender was outside her daughters’ school and that something terrible might happen to them. She complained to the police. The policewoman who took the complaint spoke with Mr Woolcock’s wife and thereafter the messages stopped for awhile. This first set of messages I shall refer to as the first wave.
In about September 2008 text messages commenced again but this time from a different number. These text messages were more abusive in their content and more threatening. I shall refer to these text messages as the second wave of texts. All of the text messages caused Ms Gladman great distress. She ultimately left her employment on 17 October 2008. She has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Social Phobia, Generalised Anxiety Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder.
On 17 October 2008 she made a claim for Worker’s Compensation. On 14 November 2008 the claim was accepted by WorkCover. On 17 August 2009 her employer sought a review of the acceptance. On 2 October 2009 Q-Comp set aside the decision of WorkCover to accept the claim and on 8 October 2009 she appealed pursuant to sections 549 and 550 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (“the Act”). This proceeding is that appeal.
The Respondent admits that Ms Gladman is a worker pursuant to the meaning of that term in section 11 of the Act.
What is in dispute in this appeal is whether or not the psychiatric and/or psychological disorders are injuries within the meaning of section 32 of the Act.
The Respondent has admitted the diagnosis of a psychiatric or psychological disorder.
Therefore the dispute is whether or not the injury arose out of or in the course of the employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury and if so, whether or not injury is excluded pursuant to section 32(5) of the Act because the injury was a psychiatric or psychological disorder arising out of or in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with her employment.
Some relevant facts which are not in dispute between the parties are as follows:
On or about 14 February 2008, Ms Gladman in a conversation with Mr Woolcock responded that she had not received any flowers on Valentine’s Day;
Shortly thereafter Mr Woolcock sent her flowers;
There was a subsequent conversation between the two of them whereby Mr Woolcock let it be known that it was him who sent the flowers;
There was communication between the two at the workplace about matters that were not directly related to either of their employment;
In about April 2008 on one Saturday, Mr Woolcock called Ms Gladman and said that she was on speaker phone. Mr Woolcock’s wife during the course of that telephone connection said “stay the fuck away from my husband” to which Ms Gladman said she wanted nothing to do with him;
After Ms Gladman had told Mr Saccu (the Director of the employer company) about the phone call, a meeting between Ms Gladman, Mr Woolcock, Mr Saccu and Mr Braun, in his capacity as a union representative, was organised;
During the course of that meeting, Mr Woolcock’s phone rang but he didn’t answer it. He then received a text from his wife which said words to the effect of “what are you too busy shagging her to answer your phone?” During the course of that meeting Mr Woolcock did repeat the phrase that he would not phone or text Ms Gladman any further;
In April to June 2008 Ms Gladman received text messages to her mobile phone (which had been previously her personal mobile phone but a short time after commencing employment her employer had taken over the payment for the phone). This mobile phone number was advertised on her business card and the phone was used for business purposes. These text messages were degrading and abusive. Prior to the above meeting, the text messages called her a slut and threatened her with having her employment terminated and never getting a job again in Brisbane. Subsequent to the meeting she continued to get text messages along the same lines calling her a slut, telling her that she gave the best head at BCP and that she was “shagging the boss”. The text messages also suggested that she was a home wrecker and one of them said “any time we say anything you run to the boss” or words to that effect.
In late May / early June she received two text messages within minutes of each other. The first one said words to the effect of “mmm nice daughters. Thankfully they don’t take after their mother. I might ask them to suck me off.” And then a second one which had words to the effect of “I’m out the front of their school right now.” After collecting her daughters, she went to the police at Mount Ommaney and made a complaint.
10.After receiving the complaint Constable Hopkins telephoned Mr Woolcock’s wife and told her not to send any further messages and thereafter the messages stopped;
11.At some stage after this Mr Woolcock told her to get out of the tea room at work;
12.All of the text messages in the first wave were shown to Mr Saccu;
13.In September she started to receive text messages again, this time from a different number. One such message was received by her when she was hopping out of her car having just arrived at her work. It said words to the effect of “you’re late to work today – did you get out of bed late with your lesbian lover?” She received text messages more often again and they became more sexually explicit. They got to the stage of threatening to sodomise her daughters. One also alleged that she would be made watch the depravity with her daughters and that she would be raped afterwards. At least one made a death threat with words to the effect of “bang bang your dead.”;
14.She became more and more distraught about these text messages which were more violent and hate filled in their content. The second wave of text messages which commenced in September 2008 also contained questions and statements like “why are you late coming in?” and “why are you leaving?” and “why are you spending time with Morri?” and “I don’t like what you’re wearing”;
15.As in the first wave of text messages Mr Saccu was shown all;
16.During the second wave a text message was sent purportedly from Ms Gladman to a number of employees all of whom worked quite closely with Mr Woolcock (and which group included Mr Woolcock) saying that she was having a house warming party and they were all invited but they were not to bring their partners and that they may stay overnight;
17.She went back to the police on or about 17 October 2008 and stopped attending her place of employment. She applied for worker’s compensation for stress leave.
There are factual areas in dispute.
[10] In giving her evidence Ms Gladman gave what seemed to me to be honest and forthright evidence. She made concessions about matters which, if she was making these things up, one would not expect her to make. For example she conceded that she engaged with Mr Woolcock to the extent of becoming a sounding board to him complaining about the state of his marriage. She also conceded also that she replied to a couple of his text messages. Another concession made by her was that when Mr Woolcock telephoned her at work he would commence talking about work before commencing to talk about more personal matters.
[11] These were all concessions made by her which could and have been argued to categorise the relationship between the two as a more personal or intimate relationship than what she accepted. If she were telling an untruth about the nature of their relationship then I would not have expected her to make those concessions. Shortly put, those concessions tend to give weight to the credibility of her evidence concerning their relationship.
[12] On the other hand Mr Woolcock for instance had trouble conceding that he was initially attracted to her. He initially said in his evidence in chief that he decided to send her the bunch of flowers as sort of a welcome to the firm. I do not accept this statement.
[13] The concessions that Mr Woolcock made were really concessions that, if they weren’t made, could have been contradicted by third parties. For example he said that Mr Saccu telephoned him (after the phone call which he and his wife had with Ms Gladman on the Saturday afternoon with his wife yelling at her) and asked him what was going on. He said that Mr Saccu said that “Sarah was distressed and crying”. This is a concession which he makes that Ms Gladman was upset by contact with him (and his wife). It is a matter upon which Mr Saccu could have given and in fact did give evidence about.
[14] On matters about which evidence could not have given by third parties, such as the nature of their conversations over the telephone, he did not make concessions. For instance he said that he never got any cold feed-back. This flies in the face of the fact that at least by the meeting with her, Mr Saccu and Mr Braun that his advances towards her had been most definitely rejected by her. He did concede that none of his duties required him to phone and speak with Ms Gladman but again this was a matter about which Mr Saccu could have and in fact did give evidence.
[15] Mr Woolcock’s demeanour throughout the giving of his evidence was not, in my opinion, the demeanour of a witness of truth. He smiled often throughout the giving of the evidence and in forming this assessment of him I do take into account the fact that some people smile when they are nervous. I am of the view that Mr Woolcock’s demeanour and smiling throughout the giving of his evidence arise more likely from a position of him feeling that he was on safe ground in respect of proof (or the lack thereof) as to who sent the text messages.
[16] When I weigh up their evidence and taking into account the respective demeanour of both (where I find Ms Gladman’s demeanour to be that of an anxious but truthful witness; she was attentive to the questions asked of her; she answered them in a forthright manner and in a manner which was helpful to the court), I prefer the evidence of Ms Gladman.
[17] For the above reasons I accept the evidence of Ms Gladman over that of Mr Woolcock wherever it is in dispute.
[18] One such instance is her denial (which I accept) of the allegation that in March 2008 Mr Woolcock phoned her stating that he’d been locked out of his own home, the result of which she offered and allowed him to sleep over at her place that evening. I am satisfied that none of this occurred.
[19] Another such instance (which I accept as having happened) is the evidence she gave that towards the end of her time working there Mr Woolcock drove his car at a fast rate of speed straight towards her office window before screeching to a halt. She was, in her words, petrified. She told Mr Saccu of this incident to which he replied, according to her “That bastard’s sick – just ignore him.” I accept the evidence of this incident of Ms Gladman over the opinion of Mr Saccu that he didn’t think it could have happened. When asked why he didn’t think it could have happened he said that was because where she used to park (before she was given a staff spot) that Mr Woolcock used to park pretty close to her. He seemed to be thinking that the allegation was of Mr Woolcock driving his car at her car window rather then at her office window. She was there and she gave clear and concise evidence that he drove his car at her office window. She made a complaint to Mr Saccu (even according to him) after it occurred.
[20] Mr Saccu’s wife was suffering from Leukaemia during this time (she passed away in November 2008) and his company was suffering financial difficulties at the time (it was in receivership). These were two major distractions for Mr Saccu at the time, so it’s understandable that his evidence on some specific issues is not as clear as it might otherwise have been. These issues and his distraction by them do affect his credit as a witness to his detriment.
[21] Mr Saccu gave evidence that “it” (Mr Woolcock’s attention towards Ms Gladman) started in the first week she was there. He said everybody knew about the flowers. He said he knew about the two waves of text messages, he was shown the messages as they came in.
[22] He said his advice to her initially was to “Play it cool – stay away from him.” At one stage after the messages started he said to her “Change your phone number” but she replied that she’d had that number since she was 17. She agreed with this evidence explaining that all her friends and family contacted her on that number and for that reason she didn’t wish to get a new phone number. He said that when she told him this he didn’t change the number because she didn’t want him to and he then said (according to him) “You’ll just have to put up with them.”
[23] Ms Gladman alleges (and Mr Saccu denies) that Mr Saccu said, after she repeatedly asked him if she could work from home, denying her request that If you can’t hack it I’ll find someone who can”. I am satisfied that Mr Saccu said words to this effect.
[24] Mr Saccu said that Mr Woolcock was a valued employee. Robert Staples who was at the relevant time employed as an accounts person confirmed this saying that Mr Woolcock was at the time one of the most valued employees. Mr Saccu believed that Mr Woolcock was responsible for the texts and at one stage, decided to lay him off, but as there was, according to him, no proof that Mr Woolcock was responsible for the texts he didn’t proceed to suspend him or dismiss him from employment. He said he did this after being told by Mr Braun that he couldn’t just put someone off. When Ms Gladman found this out she said she asked Mr Saccu why Mr Woolcock hadn’t been sacked and Mr Saccu replied (according to her) that he had too many big jobs on and there was not sufficient time to train someone else. Mr Saccu said that the reason Mr Woolcock was not laid off was because “the union stepped in and said you can’t do that”. Mr Kerry Braun gave evidence in the Appellant’s case. He was at the material time a Leading Hand, Pump Operator and Union Delegate. He said (and I accept him as a witness of truth, given the forthright manner in which he gave his evidence and the fact that he was a trusted employee of Mr Saccu at the material time) that he was in Cairns when Mr Saccu telephoned him in October and said that Ms Gladman was receiving these text messages and “You’ll have to do something about it when you get back”. He said that when he got back to work he said to Mr Saccu that one of them will have to go. He spoke with Mr Woolcock and suggested and Mr Woolcock agreed that he’d go away for a month. He said that he was overruled. I find that Mr Saccu had considered dismissing Mr Woolcock from employment at one stage and was told by Mr Braun that without proof he couldn’t dismiss him and that either at that time or at some other time Mr Braun secured the agreement of Mr Woolcock to go away for a month and sort out his life. Mr Braun’s agreement with Mr Woolcock for Mr Woolcock to take a month’s leave was overridden.
[25] The second wave of text messages contained messages which had words to the effects of the following: “Why are you late in?” and “Why are you leaving?” and “Why are you spending time with Morrie (Saccu)?” and “I don’t like what you are wearing.” The first two of these were sent at about the time she was arriving to and leaving from her employment. Another text was received by her in about September 2008 at a time when she was getting out of her car at work which said words to the effect of: “You’re late to work today – did you get out of bed late with your lesbian lover?” The timing of them together with the fact that she was regularly seeing Mr Saccu in his office and the fact that one referred to what she was wearing give rise to an inference, which I draw, that they were sent by someone at her workplace. Adding this to the inference which I have drawn that Mrs Woolcock was the person primarily responsible for sending the first wave plus Mr Woolcock’s initial infatuation with Ms Gladman, plus Mr Woolcock’s expressed dislike for Ms Gladman by the time the second wave commenced plus the fact that they were sent from a telephone purchased from a shop in a nearby suburb to where Mr and Mrs Woolcock live plus the fact that one was sent from an area covered by the Carindale tower and Mr and Mrs Woolcock lived at Carindale at the time, I find that it is more probable then not that Mr Woolcock or in the alternative Mr and Mrs Woolcock were responsible for sending the second wave of text messages. I say that it is possible that Mrs Woolcock joined Mr Woolcock in sending the second wave as the message sent on 15 October 208 at 6.58am (from Carindale) was sent at a time when Mr Woolcock should have been at a job site at West End.
[26] Ms Gladman bears the onus of proof in this matter[1].
[1] See State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-Comp and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447.
[27]
Relevantly Section 32 of the Act is as follows:-
“32 Meaning of injury
(1)An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury.
…
(5) Despite subsections (1) …, injury does not include a psychiatric or psychological disorder arising out of, or in the course of, any of the following circumstances:-
(a)reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the worker’s employment;
(b)the worker’s expectation or perception of reasonable management action being taken against the worker;
(c)action by the Authority or an insurer in connection with the worker’s application for compensation.
Examples of actions that may be reasonable management actions taken in a reasonable way—
·action taken to transfer, demote, discipline, redeploy, retrench or dismiss the worker
·a decision not to award or provide promotion, reclassification or transfer of, or leave of absence or benefit in connection with, the worker’s employment.”
[28] Accordingly the questions to be answered are as follows:-
Whether or not Ms Gladman has established on the balance of probabilities that her psychiatric or psychological disorders arose out of or in the course of her employment if her employment is a significant contributing factor to those disorders; and
Has she established that it is more probable than not that those psychiatric or psychological disorders did not arise out of or in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by her employer in connection with her employment?
[29] A report of Dr Karen Chau was tendered in evidence (Exhibit 3) and she gave oral evidence. She said, and I accept her evidence, a number of matters contributed to Ms Gladman suffering her injuries in a significant way. Those matters were:
The harassment in the second wave of text messages;
The way she perceived the lack of support of her by her employer;
The driving of the car by Mr Woolcock towards her office window at high speed;
Her employer being unsympathetic and on one occasion saying to her “if you can’t hack it I’ll have to find someone else”;
Her employer’s refusal to allow her to work from home;
The fact that she perceived that Mr Woolcock was dismissed and rehired the same day.
[30] Dr Chau considered that the first wave of text messages had a part to play in Ms Gladman’s disorder but not a significant part. I accept this opinion.
[31] Dr Chau opined that Ms Gladman’s perception as to there being gossip in the workplace about her fuelled by this harassment was a contributing factor but not a significant contributing factor. I also accept this opinion.
[32] Dr Chau also opined that Ms Gladman’s employer’s comment on the model who had some similar physical characteristics to her and was dressed scantily and a photo of which was displayed as his screen saver was not a contributing factor, but rather it reflected the workplace environment. I also accept this opinion.
[33] She diagnosed Ms Gladman as suffering “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Social Phobia, Generalised anxiety disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder in the context of sexual harassment and stalking from a work colleague since 2008.”[2] The respondent did not contest that Ms Gladman has suffered a psychiatric or psychological disorder. I find that Ms Gladman did suffer the disorders (hereafter “injury”).
[2] Exhibit 3 page 8 and her oral testimony
“Arising out of or in the course of employment”
[34] The test posited by the words “arising out of” is wider then that posited by the words “caused by”.[3] But an employee who sustains an injury whilst on a frolic of his own in his employer’s time has no entitlement to compensation.[4] It has been submitted by the Respondent that because Ms Gladman sent a text message to Mr Woolcock at 10.30 one evening and that he had telephoned her in response (leading to his wife’s abusive phone call to her during the first wave) and because she at times acted as a sounding board for him and his marital woes that these activities were outside the scope of her work and therefore she was on a so called frolic of her own. I reject this submission. The cause of the first wave of text messages and the abusive phone call was the pursuit of her by Mr Woolcock, which substantially happened at the workplace and in work hours. I accept Ms Gladman’s evidence that he would often telephone her at work and talk to her about some work related subject and then commence to discuss with her his marriage. In any event the first wave of text messages was not a significant contributing factor to her suffering her injury.
[3] See Lackey v WorkCover Queensland [2000] QIC 43; 165 QGIG 22 (29 August 2000) per Hall P.
[4] See WorkCover Queensland v BHP (Qld) Workers’ Compensation Unit [2002] QIC 27 per Hall P.
[35] I am satisfied that Ms Gladman’s injury arose out of or in the course of her employment.
“Employment a significant contributing factor”
[36] It is not sufficient to prove that an injury arose out of or in the course of employment; a more substantial connection with employment is required. An applicant must show that the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury.[5]
[5] See Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] 1 Qd. R 519 at 532
[37] Having found that she was not acting on a frolic of her own in acting as a sometime sounding board for Mr Woolcock and his marital woes, I don’t accept the submission that employment cannot be considered to be a significant contributing factor to the injury. In saying that I am not reversing the onus of proof which always remains with Ms Gladman.
[38] I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that her employment was a significant factor to the following stressors (for these reasons):
The harassment in the second wave of text messages (if she had not worked there she would not have received the messages from Mr Woolcock, her work colleague);
The way she perceived the lack of support of her by her employer (self evident);
The driving of the car by Mr Woolcock towards her glass window at high speed (again if she had not worked there she would not have been the subject of this very harassing and intimidating behaviour from her work colleague) ;
Her employer being unsympathetic and on one occasion saying to her “if you can’t hack it I’ll have to find someone else” (self evident);
Her employer’s refusal to allow her to work more from home (self evident);
The fact that she perceived that Mr Woolcock was dismissed and rehired the same day (self evident).
“Reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way”
[39] Having found that Ms Gladman’s injury arose out of or in connection with her employment with the employment being a significant factor to the injury I now consider whether s 32(5) excludes the injury from being compensable.
[40] The harassment of her by the second wave of text messages and the driving of the car at her office window by Mr Woolcock were separately or collectively the most serious actions against her. They could not be classified as management actions.
[41] Three of the other 4 stressors may be conveniently dealt with together. They are:
The way she perceived the lack of support of her by her employer;
Her employer being unsympathetic and on one occasion saying to her “if you can’t hack it I’ll have to find someone else”;
The fact that she perceived that Mr Woolcock was dismissed and rehired the same day.
[42] All of these stressors involved some form of management action. The second and third mentioned really are a part of the first. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Saccu’s unsympathetic reaction and the fact that he overruled Mr Braun’s agreement with Mr Woolcock for Mr Woolcock to spend a month away from the workplace were not reasonable management actions taken in a reasonable way and that Ms Gladman’s perception that she lacked the support of her employer was a justified perception. Mr Saccu could have said something other then what he did to Ms Gladman when she was complaining to him about how Mr Woolcock was treating her and how he had said to Mr Saccu that he hated her. He could have convened another meeting between the two of them to try to get Mr Woolcock to retreat from his position of hatred or disallowing any contact at work. In a more general sense he should have conducted further investigations into who was sending the texts (this would have signified to Ms Gladman that he was serious about stopping them) such as individually interviewing each employee to ascertain the extent of their knowledge, contact the police himself (and tell Ms Gladman that he was doing the same to show his support for her) and ask the police to intensify their investigations into who was sending the texts even to the extent of offering the police access to his yard and offices to conduct their interviews and offering access to his company’s books to give the police any information they required. Even though these actions may not have revealed admissible evidence that Mr Woolcock was beyond reasonable doubt the culprit they would have shown to Ms Gladman that her employer was serious about stopping the harassment. Also these actions would have sent a message to the culprit that he was serious about investigating and ascertaining the identity of the culprit thus leading to the culprit ceasing the harassment.
[43] He didn’t do any of these things but rather said to her that if she couldn’t hack it he would have to find someone else. Further it would have been reasonable to let Mr Woolcock leave the workplace for a month. It was not reasonable to overrule the agreement to him to have this break.
[44] The final stressor to which I need to refer is her employer’s refusal to allow her to work more from home. Both Mr Saccu and Ms Gladman gave evidence of these requests. She says she could have competently done her work from home. He agreed that she did do some work from her home after hours and on the weekends but that this was to make up for the time she took off from work in the afternoons to collect her daughters from school, about whom she was very worried for there safety. He agreed that the business had email access, she had a telephone and she could be called into work on an urgent matter by a telephone call. He says that he wouldn’t get the best out of a worker who was working from home. I am of the view that the employer letting her leave work early to collect her daughters from school as she was worried for their safety was sufficient in the circumstances. It was reasonable for Mr Saccu to decline her request to do all her work from home. In other words this was reasonable management taken in a reasonable way.
[45] In Q-Comp v Glen Rowe[6] the President of the Industrial Court of Queensland said that the following passage by Watson, the author of Industrial Laws of Queensland is plainly correct:
“So it now can be definitely said that if there are multiple events or stressors and only one or some of them arise out of or occur in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way then the claimant may succeed in the claim based on any that do not so arise or occur in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.”
[6] [2009] QIC 17; 191 QGIG 67 (12 May 2009)
[46] Here I have found one stressor to have arisen out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way, that being her employer’s refusal to allow her to work more from home. As against that I have found the following stressors on her, which were significant contributing factors to her injury to have not arisen out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way:
The harassment in the second wave of text messages;
The way she perceived the lack of support of her by her employer;
The driving of the car by Mr Woolcock towards her glass window at high speed;
Her employer being unsympathetic and on one occasion saying to her “if you can’t hack it I’ll have to find someone else”.
[47] As I have said earlier the most serious stressors in my view were the harassment in the second wave of texts and the driving of the car at her window, both of which either impliedly or directly, threatened her life. These two, when taken together with her perception of the lack of support of her employer and her employer’s unsympathetic statement by far outweigh the seriousness of the stress of not being allowed to work from home more when she already went home early to collect her daughters from school.
[48] When I consider all of the stressors together I find on the balance of probabilities that her injury did not arise out of reasonable management taken in a reasonable way by her employer in connection with her employment.
[49] I therefore find that Ms Gladman suffered an injury within the meaning of section 32 of the Act.
[50] Pursuant to section 558(1)(c) of the Act I set aside the decision of Q-Comp of 2 October 2009 and substitute for it the decision that the Insurer is to accept Ms Gladman’s application for compensation.
0
0
1