Hazelton v Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Hazelton v Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution [2025] NSWPIC 200
APPLICANT:	Susan Dorothy Hazelton
RESPONDENT:	Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	13 May 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66 in respect of a primary psychological injury; injury disputed; delay in giving notice of injury and making a claim of approximately 12-months; where workplace described favourably in exit interview; concurrent personal stressors and prior history of psychological symptoms and treatment; Held – worker sustained an injury in the nature of an aggravation, exacerbation or deterioration of her pre-existing psychological condition; real events in the workplace perceived as hostile causing a deterioration in the applicant’s condition; treating evidence supportive of employment being the main contributing factor to the injury; delay adequately explained by the seriousness of the applicant’s condition in the period following the cessation of work; medical dispute remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained a psychological injury in the course of employment with the respondent, in the nature of an aggravation, exacerbation or deterioration of a disease, to which employment was the main contributing factor, pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment as follows: Date of injury: 4 April 2022 (deemed) Body part: Primary psychological injury Method: Whole Person Impairment. 3. The materials to be referred to the Medical Assessor are to include the Application to Resolve a Dispute and all attachments, the Reply and all attachments and this Certificate of Determination and accompanying Statement of Reasons. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ms Susan Hazelton (the applicant) was employed by Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution Pty Ltd (the respondent) as an Area Care Assessment Consultant between 9 August 2021 and 4 April 2022. In or around July 2023, the applicant made a claim that she sustained a psychological injury in the course of her employment with the respondent due to incidents at work and behaviour by her co-workers and superiors.
Liability for the claim was initially disputed in a notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 1 February 2024
The applicant made a claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) on 2 May 2024. That claim was disputed by the respondent’s insurer in a further notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the 1998 Act on 27 August 2024.The decision to dispute liability was maintained following internal review on 25 September 2024.
The applicant commenced the current proceedings by lodgement of an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 9 January 2025.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a)    whether the applicant sustained a psychological injury in the course of employment pursuant to s 4(b) of the 1987 Act;
(b)    whether the applicant is barred from recovering compensation in respect of the injury pursuant to ss 254 and 261 of the 1998 Act, and
(c)    the degree of permanent impairment resulting from the injury.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The parties appeared before the Commission for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing on 3 April 2025 via Microsoft Teams. The applicant was represented by Mr Greg Young of counsel, instructed by Ms Fran Smith. The respondent was represented by Mr Paul Rickard of counsel, instructed by Mr Robert Passas. Ms Mallard from the insurer was also present.
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.

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, and
(b) Reply and all attached documents.
Neither party applied to adduce oral evidence or cross-examine any witness.

Applicant’s evidence

The applicant’s evidence is set out in a written statement dated 26 November 2024.
The applicant disclosed a prior episode of postnatal depression following the birth of her daughter, following which she took antidepressant medication. The applicant said she was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in around 2010 and took medication for about a year.
The applicant said that otherwise she had not suffered from any psychological or psychiatric condition.
The applicant described herself as a person with strong fortitude and the support of a loving husband and family. As with any person in their 60s, the applicant had experienced significant life stressors but had always been able to deal with them and they had never affected her capacity to work for any significant period of time.
The applicant said that her work for the respondent required her to manage the funding requirements of five aged care facilities, including a facility at Berry. The applicant worked mainly from home and provided support to registered nurses. The registered nurses conducted assessments of clients at the various facilities and would notify the applicant of any changes that would require submissions to Medicare. Those submissions had to be processed in a timely manner so that funding would continue and increase as required.
The applicant had no issues with the work she did with four of the facilities, however, there were significant issues with the facility in Berry.
In December 2021, a registered nurse was employed as a Care Assessment Coordinator (CAC) at the Berry facility. The applicant experienced multiple issues working with the new CAC. The applicant stated:
“I tried to educate her in the correct manner of performing the work but she ignored my calls and emails and would not provide me with the necessary information and assessments. She would complete the documents inappropriately, causing the need for charting to be redone. My attempts to assist her in a correct manner of completing the assessments were futile. I have had much experience in training people in this area and I have never struck this issue before.
Eventually, I would even write the assessments which should have been completed by the Berry CAC and ask her to sign off on them.”
On one occasion, due to a significant deadline and lack of response from the CAC, the applicant signed off on an assessment herself even though she had not been on site to see the resident. The applicant said she was strongly affected by this and felt it affected her identity, confidence and professionalism. If the deadline had been missed, the facility would have had reduced funding and support from Medicare. The applicant said this caused her incredible stress and kept her from sleeping. The applicant said the additional work involved in doing her own job and effectively part of the Berry CAC’s job was totally unmanageable.
During January, February and March 2022, the applicant said she was ignored and stonewalled by the Berry CAC. The applicant raised her concerns with her manager and a meeting with the regional manager, care manager and general manager was arranged but nothing improved.
Due to the increased workload and stress she was under, the applicant failed to meet a deadline in March 2022. This had never happened before and the applicant was totally devastated. The applicant said,
“My ability to sleep started to be seriously affected from early 2022. My mental health deteriorated and in early April 2022 l had dreams of suicide. This really frightened me. I had a major panic attack. I knew it was work that was making me feel that way. I could not cope and I knew I could not keep going.”
The applicant consulted her general practitioner who gave her a medical certificate. The applicant returned to work after a short time but could not continue and ceased working at the end of April 2022.
The applicant stated,
“At the time of my resignation, I did not mention my mental health nor the problems with the Berry facility nor the increased workload nor the lack of support from my superiors. I think this is due to a number of factors including shame and embarrassment.
My mental health was deteriorating rapidly and I just needed to get out of there. I just said what I needed to say and did not specifically say it was my psychological condition that was the ‘health reason’ for leaving the job. Although the manager specifically asked me if it was the ‘Berry issues’ which caused my resignation, I glossed over it because l just could not handle further discussion about it.
ln my exit interview I did speak of the job in positive terms. lt is true that I did have some good work relationships and there were no issues with the other four facilities that l worked with.
It has also been explained to me by my treatment providers that my responses in the exit interview probably reflected a ‘flight’ response in a ‘fight or flight’ situation.”
With regard to a delay in the lodgement of her workers compensation claim, the applicant said her life was at risk. There was no way she was capable of lodging a claim for a long time after she stopped work. After significant treatment and improvement in her condition in late 2023, the applicant finally felt well enough to lodge the claim.
The applicant said she had been treated by her general practitioner, a psychiatrist, Dr James Oldham, and a psychologist, Ms Allira Watts. The applicant was suicidal in around July 2022. The applicant was admitted to South Coast Private Hospital in November 2022 and May 2023. The applicant had been treated with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) therapy. The applicant described her ongoing medications and symptoms.

Respondent’s factual investigation

The respondent relies on a factual investigation report prepared by AB Investigations dated 11 September 2023.

Applicant’s statement

Attached to the investigation report was an earlier statement from the applicant dated 4 September 2023. In that statement, the applicant noted that she had been on antidepressants since about 1996 when she was diagnosed with postpartum depression. The applicant also disclosed her previous ADHD diagnosis. The applicant indicated that she had ceased her ADHD medication when she was diagnosed with cancer in 2011.
A detailed history of the applicant’s treatment for the injury, including trials of different medications was set out. The applicant said that by November 2022, she had reached the point of being totally unsafe and could not be left alone. The applicant was admitted to South Coast Private Hospital for 21 days.
The applicant noted that she commenced employment for the respondent on 9 August 2021 and worked until 29 April 2022 on a full-time basis. The applicant said she was in good health and had no conditions that affected her ability to work when she commenced employment.
The applicant gave a detailed description of her work role. The applicant described a passion for the work that she did and wanting her colleagues to be proud of their own work. The applicant said that she wanted the CACs at each facility she managed to shine in their role and would call them each week and try to help them. The applicant described a past experience in a similar role where, within a week of the applicant commencing work, auditors had arrived and said they had not seen anything so bad in their life. The applicant found this humiliating even though it was not her own work. The applicant said she never wanted to be put in that position again or for any of the girls working for her to be put in that position.
The applicant described the Berry facility as the main cause of her increased stress and anxiety. A new CAC did not want to listen to the applicant and ignored her. The CAC would go and work on the floor instead of sticking to her job and doing the work the applicant needed in order to do her own job. The applicant said she tried really hard to educate the CAC but the work did not get done. The applicant described a particular case where, against own professional integrity, the applicant had signed off on an assessment in order to avoid missing a deadline. This caused the applicant incredible stress and kept her from sleeping well. The applicant felt very uneasy. In March 2022, the applicant failed to meet a submission deadline. The applicant was very hard on herself as it should not have happened. The applicant said she felt overwhelmed by the lack of support at the facility.
A meeting was arranged with the applicant’s regional manager, the general manager and care manager. The applicant was told things would improve but they got worse. The applicant said she left work due to a major panic attack. The applicant was suicidal and thought she needed to get away from work for her own safety. The applicant acknowledged that she never wrote that she was resigning for mental health reasons but said she had previously told her manager that she had developed suicidal thoughts over work and was not sleeping at night.
The applicant said that when she resigned, her manager had asked if she was leaving due to the issues at Berry. The applicant said no and that she wanted to be home with her husband. The applicant needed to leave as fast as she could. The applicant felt ashamed and guilty that she was letting her team down. The applicant thought that she would get better.

Barbara Maranik

The applicant’s manager, Ms Barbara Maranik, prepared a written statement on 7 September 2023.
Ms Maranik described the applicant as a “nervy sort of person”. The applicant tended to dwell on things. The applicant had disclosed having depression previously and problems at her previous employer.
Ms Maranik said the CAC who had been appointed at Berry had been a friend of the applicant. She had resigned and refused to work with the applicant. Ms Maranik said she had worked with the same CAC and she was doing a great job. Ms Maranik said she could not understand how the applicant did not get along with her. If the applicant was having problems, she could have let Ms Maranik take over but instead she insisted on doing things herself.
Ms Maranik confirmed that the applicant said she had been stressed and not sleeping. The applicant mentioned getting older and wanted to spend time with her husband on the farm. Ms Maranik said she was taken aback by the applicant’s claim that she was stressed as a result of the Berry facility. Ms Maranik said that she had looked after the Berry facility after the applicant ceased work. Everything had been going fine and she had not experienced any problems with the facility herself.
Ms Maranik confirmed that the applicant had told her that she had not been receiving responses to her emails to the general manager. The general manager did not take most people’s calls. Ms Maranik could not recall a meeting with the general manager and regional manager in relation to the applicant. Ms Maranik did not recall the applicant saying that the Berry facility was causing her distress to the degree now claimed. The applicant did say she was becoming frustrated with them and she could not get her job done.
Ms Maranik did recall that there was a patient in March 2022 who had required recurrent hospitalisations. The applicant had said she was unhappy about her assessments but was not so distressed that she wanted to kill herself. Ms Maranik said that emails the applicant sent around that time indicated that her dog was very ill and had been put down just before Christmas. The applicant mentioned being near the end of her working life and needing to spend time on the farm. The issues with the Berry facility were “in the mix” but not the only issue. The applicant had also had some issues with bronchitis and diarrhoea on more than one occasion.
Ms Maranik said she was shocked when she found out about the workers compensation claim. The applicant had sent her messages saying she was doing well and enjoying spending time with her husband. There were pictures of her playing with her cows.
More recently, the applicant had disclosed that she was really depressed and that it was all due to work. The applicant also disclosed that floods had wiped out all the fences on her farm.
The applicant had not disclosed feeling unwell due to work while she remained employed. There was no mention of the applicant being suicidal. In the weeks prior to her leaving work, the applicant was unsettled. There was no communication that the applicant felt she had to run away from work. Rather, she said she was looking forward to being at home.

Letter of resignation

On 11 April 2022, the applicant emailed Ms Maranik stating that she wished to tender her resignation as at the end of business that day. The applicant said her health had deteriorated and she was unable to continue in her role. The applicant expressed thanks for the opportunity of working with Ms Maranik and the team.
On 20 April 2022, the applicant emailed Ms Maranik noting her resignation and asked if it was possible to for her to be retained on a casual basis as required. The applicant again expressed thanks for the opportunity and professional growth she had gained in her role.

Exit interview

The applicant completed an exit interview form in which she indicated that she was resigning due to health reasons and retirement. The applicant said she would recommend the respondent’s workplace as a good place to work. The applicant strongly agreed that her overall employment experience had been positive and that she had been provided with the right tools and resources to fulfil the requirements of her role. The applicant disagreed that there was adequate staffing levels to meet workload demands. The applicant strongly agreed that she was well supported by her immediate manager.

Email correspondence

Annexed to the factual investigation report were various emails sent by the applicant to Ms Maranik during the course of her employment making reference to her dog’s ill-health and subsequent death.
In late March 2022, the applicant had emailed Ms Maranik reporting that she had been unwell with suspected asthma or bronchitis.
Also attached were some emails from the applicant around the same time regarding missing documentation.

Treating evidence

Clinical records from the applicant’s general practitioners at Tongarra Family Practice are in evidence. Those records note that the applicant was prescribed Zoloft at varying doses from 1997 until March 2014.
On 31 March 2014 the applicant reported stress and emotional upset in the context of family issues. The applicant felt Zoloft was not helping. The applicant was prescribed mirtazapine.
The applicant reported some improvement in symptoms in June 2014 but increased her Zoloft prescription again in November 2014.
The applicant is recorded to have reported stress at home and feeling very tired and fatigued on 13 May 2015.
On 21 October 2015 the applicant reported feeling very depressed and tearful. The applicant described problems at work and feeling suicidal the previous day. The applicant was prescribed venlafaxine. Some adjustments to the applicant’s antidepressant prescriptions were made over the next few months.

On 17 June 2016, the applicant reported stress at work and feeling very anxious. The applicant’s sleep was poor and she was having arguments in the workplace. The applicant was prescribed clonidine.
Stress and family issues were recorded again in September 2016 and September 2017.
On 27 August 2018, the applicant presented as tearful, reporting feeling pressurised at work and not sleeping well. The applicant said she planned to move to a different job. The applicant was again prescribed venlafaxine.
The clinical notes recorded that the applicant was still taking venlafaxine in September 2019, October 2020 and early 2021. On 7 June 2021, the applicant reported anxiety and palpitations. Dr Mark Condon noted, “Feels depression is back.”
On 8 July 2021, the applicant was given a medical certificate and prescribed venlafaxine.
The applicant sought a repeat prescription for venlafaxine on 10 March 2022.
On 4 April 2022, Dr Sanjay Chalissery recorded:
“panic attacks
Not sleeping well
Very anxious getting very angry / irritable etc / some thoughts of self harm.
On Efexor. Sleeps is poor. Advised Valium PRN nocte”
The applicant was prescribed diazepam and given a medical certificate.
The applicant was seen by Dr Condon on 6 June 2022 reporting “anxiety+++”.
Although the applicant reported that she was feeling less stressed on 16 June 2022, on 20 June 2022 the applicant reported her anxiety was worse. The applicant was prescribed Zoloft and her venlafaxine prescription increased.
The applicant discussed her prescriptions with Dr Condon on 22 June 2022, 5 July 2022 and 12 July 2022. A mental health care plan and referral to a psychiatrist were prepared.
A mental health assessment dated 1 July 2022 noted:
“-Intense Anxiety 4-6 weeks
-Triggers: was working in a pressured job - had heart palpitation which got cleared and her dog's death in December 2021
-she decided to leave the job last July then started a new job which was a lot more complex and lot pressure, had issue within work place, bullying and harassment
- left work- did not report but Anxiety got worse”
Under the heading, “History of Presenting Problem”, it was recorded:
“Anxiety episode few years ago, also remembering having post partum depression Commenced Zoloft - ceased this then tried Effexor (believed Zoloft may have been affecting her liver)
Past few years working away - in aged care (RN working as an auditor managing 5 facilities) Found work too overwhelming - also lives on a farm so upkeep of the farm
started having nightmares about work - became very anxious, was rocking in her sleep Wasn’t sleeping welI - overthinking waking up at 3 am with panic attacks,
Susan identifies a few stressors
- Family dog of 15 years passed away
- 2 x friends have passed away
- house needing repairs (roof leaking from all the rain, new blinds, cannot believe she has let the house run down)
- Brother in the air force retired and has become abusive
- doesn't cope with conflict - avoidance
Began having suicidal ideation
Put in a resignation in early April
Since leaving work - anxiety has worsened”
The applicant’s prescription was changed on 28 July 2022. On 8 August 2022, Dr Condon noted,
“Has ceased norvasc and catapress since friday. Still taking coversyl but is incredibly anxious 24/7.”
After further discussions about her medications in August and early September 2022, the applicant was prescribed Brintellex. Consultations regarding the applicant’s psychological symptoms and prescription medications continued to be reported on a regular basis thereafter.
Psychiatrist, Dr Abdul Burhan wrote to Dr Condon on 2 August 2022 noting that the applicant had been referred with regard to severe anxiety and depression. Dr Burhan noted:
“Susan was doing well, but some anxiety due to work late stress last year however in December she lost her dog and in January the issues at work escalated due to specifically one of the managers of one of the facilities made everything possible do not allow her to have access to the information she needs to do her job, became very stressful, especially because she is a person who all her career worked to a high standards and wanted to make sure that she was meeting her obligations at a very high standard. the situation ended with her resignation because she couldn't manage any longer, subsequently she entered a phase of severe anxiety with depression associated intense suicide ideation. At a later stage involvement of the community mental health services and one episode of admission to the emergency department for one day only for the intensive suicidal thoughts. the community mental health team discharged her only two weeks ago and l received a copy of their discharge summary.”
A clinical psychologist, Ms Felicity Wiseman, wrote to Dr Condon on 17 August 2022, reporting:
“Sue presented with low mood, recent suicidal ideation and plan (denied currently), stress, anxiety, panic, disturbance in motivation/energy, attention/concentration. This was in the context of childhood in which ‘children seen and not heard’, which may have impacted on her capacity to soothe. There was previous mental health history and treatment, diagnosis of ADHD, current psychiatric consultations and adjustment to retirement. Her symptoms precipitated by the death of a close friend, fear of her own and husband's mortality/financial instability and water damage to her property. Her distress perpetuated by harsh self-criticism, overthinking, perfectionist traits and Iack of skills to manage her distress. Protective factors include her resilience, love for her husband, good relationship with her daughter and desire to manage her distress.”
Psychiatrist, Dr James Oldham, at South Coast Private Hospital wrote to Dr Condon on 7 December 2022, noting that the applicant had been admitted to the hospital between 15 November 2022 and 7 December 2022. Dr Oldham wrote:
“Susan Hazleton is a 65 year old RN who has been having significant panic attacks related to her responsibilities as a manager of a group of old age facilities and in other roles regarding provision of care to elders. She had ovarian cancer more than ten years ago which spread to the peritoneal cavity and caused huge ascites. She responded well to chemotherapy and radical surgery three months after the chemotherapy. It is likely that her present psychological state has triggered PTSD memories of this treatment experience. She has severe anxiety and depression which has been unresponsive to a series of antidepressants. Her current crisis follows a series of work crises and home crises in managing the family home and farm. She has symptoms of GAD and MDD.”
Psychologist Alison Rogers wrote to Dr Condon on 14 December 2022 reporting:
“Sue attended 4 appointments from 5/10/22 to 26/10/22 reporting grief, stress (work burn out) and suicidal ideation. There was little improvement in mood states and no improvement regarding the severity of anxiety concerns. Following an admission to South Coast Private Hospital, Sue now states her intention of moving into attending some classes at the private hospital.”
In an undated letter to the insurer, the applicant’s psychologist, Ms Allira Watts, noted that she first saw the applicant on 17 February 2023 reporting severe anxiety, panic attacks and hypervigilance in the context of work stress. The applicant had ceased work due to becoming overwhelmed, feeling unsupported and under intense pressure. The applicant also reported symptoms of depression and prior suicidal ideation.
Ms Watts was asked whether the applicant’s psychological symptoms could relate to a pre-existing condition or injury. Ms Watts responded:
“Susan reports the onset of her symptoms occurring in the context of increased work stress due to her treatment by management and colleagues. She does not report previous existing conditions, however, I have only worked with Susan post workplace incident and am unable to speak for her condition prior to this time apart from what she has directly reported to me.”
Clinical records from consultant psychiatrist, Dr James Oldham commenced on 17 February 2023. The applicant noted symptoms of anxiety, panic, fear of failure and constant catastrophising. The applicant reported being triggered by work-related issues very easily and commented that her boss had completely “dumped” her. Notes were also made referencing numerous difficult family deaths and the previous diagnosis of cancer.
In a letter dated 2 November 2023, Dr Oldham wrote to the applicant’s general practitioner making a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder. Dr Oldham commented on the mechanism of injury as follows:
“It is likely her symptoms are due to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, following the events that occurred at the Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution Berry Facility between 9 August 2021 and 29 April 2022. On 4 April 2022 she went to her GP and told them she was suicidal. On 11 April 2022 she told her manager she wanted to resign immediately. She was retired on 29 April 2022. One of the symptoms of PTSD is amnesia which would explain why her reactions to the trauma were not available to her before now.”
On 2 April 2024, Dr Oldham reported to the applicant’s general practitioner that the applicant’s PTSD symptoms persisted. Dr Oldham commented,
“She is realizing the depth of the psychological injury she experienced when she was working for RFBI in a supervisory position in which she was not supported and the organization’s systems placed her in a position that left her no options but to resign.”

Dr Khan

The applicant relies upon medico-legal reports prepared by consultant psychiatrist, Dr Abdal Khan, dated 23 April 2024 and 22 November 2024.
Dr Khan recorded a history that was consistent with the applicant’s statement evidence. Dr Khan said that as a result of the stressors described in the applicant’s statement evidence, she experienced a gradual onset of psychological symptoms:
“As a result of these aforementioned work-related stressors, Ms Hazelton experienced gradual deterioration in her mental state characterised by low mood, anxious ruminations, panic attacks, agitation, reduced motivation, reduced energy, loss of enjoyment in activities, social withdrawal, sleep disturbance with poor sleep maintenance, appetite disturbance with weight loss of approximately 15kg, impaired attention, impaired concentration and impaired memory. She also struggled with feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness, suicidal ideation, loss of self-confidence, loss of self-esteem, loss of self-identity and difficulties with trust in interpersonal relationships.”
Dr Khan noted that the applicant had been treated by her general practitioner, psychologist and psychiatrist on average every four weeks. The applicant psychiatrist, Dr Oldham, had diagnosed the applicant with post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder. The applicant had been treated with medications including venlafaxine, sertraline, chlorpromazine, quetiapine, diazepam and lisdexamphetamine as well as transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment. Dr Khan also noted the two psychiatric hospital admissions.
Dr Khan noted the prior history of postnatal depression and ADHD. Dr Khan noted that the applicant’s mother had passed away in early 2024. The applicant denied any other significant recent psychosocial stressors.
Dr Khan diagnosed a major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder. Dr Khan expressed the view that the applicant’s psychological condition first manifested in around late 2021. Dr Khan said there were no identifiable non-work-related stressors contributing to the applicant’s psychological injury.
Dr Khan stated,
“Ms Hazelton is suffering from a disease of gradual process. The protracted workplace stressors that she endured in her employment, as detailed in the ‘History of Presentation’ section of this report, were the main contributing factor in causing her psychiatric/psychological conditions of major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder.”
Dr Khan assessed the applicant as having 17% whole person impairment (WPI) after making a 10% deduction pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act.
In his supplementary report, Dr Khan was asked to consider the respondent’s factual investigation and the applicant’s exit interview. Dr Khan commented:
“I have no reason to amend my original opinions as expressed in my previous reports dated 23 April 2024. It was noted that Ms Maranik had a different perspective on the allegations raised by Ms Hazelton. Ms Maranik acknowledged in her statement about some of the concerns raised by Ms Hazelton and had reportedly offered to give one of the sites to another employee but indicated that Ms Hazelton denied this offer. Ultimately determining the veracity of Ms Hazelton’s version of events versus that of Ms Maranik is a matter for legal arbitration. It was noted that Ms Hazelton had not raised any negative issues about her employment in her exit interview and instead indicated that she was leaving due to her health and age. It was not until she had engaged in mental health treatment later that she had become cognisant about the impact of her workplace stressors on her mental state, which is why she lodged her workers compensation claim approximately 12 months after resigning. This is not surprising from a psychiatric perspective given that mentally unwell patients will often repress their traumatic experiences until such time that they engage in treatment and this trauma becomes unrepressed. I do not consider that Ms Hazelton’s exit interview can be given much weight given the context of her mental health deterioration.”
Dr Khan was also asked to comment on the reports of the respondent’s medico-legal expert, Dr Nagesh:
“I do not agree with Dr Nagesh’s opinion regarding causation. He has dismissed Ms Hazelton’s version of events in favour of the employer’s version of events when ultimately determining the veracity of allegations pertaining to bullying and harassment is a matter for legal arbitration. That aside, he ought to have taken into consideration the temporality of circumstances, specifically the deterioration of Ms Hazelton’s mental state in the context of alleged workplace stressors and in the absence of any other significant non-work-related stressors. Furthermore, he did not take into consideration the extensive evidence in the contemporaneous records of Ms Hazelton’s treating medical team.”
Dr Khan reiterated his previously expressed opinion that the psychological condition had not been caused by non-work-related factors.

Dr Nagesh

The respondent relies upon medicolegal reports prepared by psychiatrist, Dr Abhishek Nagesh, dated 6 December 2023 and 13 August 2024.
In his first report, Dr Nagesh took a history that was broadly consistent with the applicant’s statement evidence.
Dr Nagesh noted a long history of anxiety and a past history of postnatal depression. Dr Nagesh noted that the applicant had been treated with antidepressant medications in the past.
Dr Nagesh indicated that based on her alleged symptoms the applicant met the criteria for major depression of moderate degree with anxious distress. Dr Nagesh noted that the applicant had received treatment since being off work and expressed the view that the applicant’s condition was currently in remission or partial remission.
Dr Nagesh noted that the applicant’s allegations of bullying and harassment had been refuted by the employer’s representatives. The employer’s representatives had stated that the applicant was upset in general with interpersonal factors including coming to retirement age.
Dr Nagesh expressed the opinion,
“Since the allegations of bullying and harassment have been refuted by the employers representative’s workplace factors have not caused alleged psychological injury. Her pre-existing condition has not contributed to her condition. Her previous injury has also not contributed to her current condition.
I refer to the documents of the Shoalhaven Illawarra Mental Health team where the consult notes states number of other stressors which include her dog dying in 2021, her friends having died, struggling with recent rain and mould and also having to renovate her house and her brother retired from the Army verbally abusing her have contributed to her alleged psychological injury. Also, Ms Hazelton as the time of leaving work was well and she did not identify any work-related stressors and hence on the balance of probabilities the subsequent events in their life/lifestyle activities have contributed to her alleged psychological injury.”
Dr Nagesh concluded that since the allegations of bullying and harassment in the workplace had been refuted, it was his opinion that workplace events had not caused the alleged psychological injury.
In his supplementary report, Dr Nagesh was asked to comment on the reports of Dr Khan as well as some additional treating evidence. Dr Nagesh commented,
“I noted that the Applicant has not made any complaints to her employer about any adverse work conditions at any time up until her exit interview. The worker has not made any complaints of any psychological symptoms, 12 months after ceasing work with the employer. In my opinion this is not consistent with someone who has suffered a work related psychological injury. The worker has been under other personal stressors where she was living on a large farm, the house she was living in was leaking which in my opinion has probably contributed to the development of her alleged depressive and anxiety symptoms.”
Dr Nagesh maintained the view that although the applicant alleged that she was bullied, harassed, belittled and ignored and that there was an increase in workload and lack of support, those allegations had been refuted. Having accepted the respondent’s evidence as accurate, the applicant had not suffered a work-related injury. The stressors in the applicant’s personal life including, a house which leaked, had given rise to the alleged psychological injury.
Dr Nagesh gave the opinion that the applicant had not suffered a work related injury and hence there was no whole person impairment.
Dr Nagesh was asked to make an assessment in the event the Commission found a work-related component and assessed 17% WPI after making a 10% deduction pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act.

Applicant’s submissions

The applicant noted that she had conceded having pre-existing conditions of postnatal depression and ADHD. The applicant had undergone a pre-employment medical and there was no suggestion that she could not do her job.
The applicant referred to her statement evidence on the issues she had in the performance of her work for the respondent. It was quite clear that the applicant was passionate about her work and took great pride in it. The applicant could do her work generally but had difficulty with one facility. The respondent was aware of the challenges the applicant was experiencing with the Berry facility. The applicant had been given offers of help. There were real events in the workplace that were stressful for the applicant, although there may have been differing perceptions of those events.
The applicant said she started to experience symptoms from early 2022. The applicant conceded that she had not mentioned her mental health as in issue at the time of her resignation. This was due to a number of factors including shame and embarrassment. The applicant could not endure further discussions about her issues.
The applicant noted that a mental health assessment was conducted in July 2022 recording extreme symptoms in the context of work stressors.
The applicant submitted that Dr Khan had explained the delay in a claim being made. Dr Khan had the clinical records and treating reports before him in preparing his report. The history recorded by Dr Khan was consistent with the applicant’s statement evidence.
The applicant conceded that the general practitioner’s records detailed a history of prior psychological problems dating from 2004 onwards. There had been consultations in which the applicant reported stress and regular treatment around August 2018. There was an isolated record on 7 June 2021, then a gap of around nine months in which there was no real treatment for psychological symptoms. The applicant submitted that the clinical records were consistent with an aggravation of a pre-existing condition.

The applicant conceded that Dr Khan did not take a very full history of the pre-existing psychological symptoms but given the gaps between consultations, the prior problem was more relevant to any s 323 deduction on causation.
The applicant noted that Dr Khan had responded to the issues raised by Dr Nagesh. By the time of his supplementary report, Dr Khan had considered the factual investigation and Dr Nagesh’s reports. Dr Khan observed that Dr Nagesh had simply accepted the respondent’s version of events. Dr Nagesh concluded that there was no relationship between the applicant’s symptoms and employment. The weighing of the versions of events was a matter for arbitration.
With regard to the delay in making a claim, Dr Khan observed that it was not until the applicant had engaged in mental health treatment that she became cognisant of the impact of her workplace stresses on her mental health. Dr Khan said it was not surprising from a psychiatric perspective that the applicant had repressed her traumatic experiences. Dr Khan did not consider that the exit interview ought to be given much weight.
The applicant went through the clinical notes including the consultations on 27 August 2018 and 7 June 2021. The applicant noted that she was prescribed venlafaxine in March 2022. In April 2022, the applicant reported symptoms including panic attacks and not sleeping well. Although there was no reference to work, it was apparent that the applicant was experiencing severe symptoms by this time. The applicant submitted that this was consistent with an aggravation of a disease injury under s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act. The applicant’s evidence as to what had happened around that time was critical.
The treating evidence thereafter was said to be consistent with the applicant’s statement evidence.
The Mental Health Current Assessment dated 1 July 2022 noted triggers including work pressure, bullying and harassment.
The applicant referred to Dr Burhan’s report of 2 August 2022, four months after the cessation of work. The applicant had described issues at work escalating leading to the applicant’s resignation because she could no longer manage. The applicant then entered a phase of severe anxiety and depression associated with intense suicidal ideation.
The applicant noted that Dr Oldham had reported, after the applicant’s hospital admission, that her panic attacks were related to her responsibilities at work.
Ms Rogers had noted that the applicant’s symptoms occurred in the context of “work burn out”.
The applicant submitted that while the evidence revealed a number of personal stressors, employment with the respondent was the main contributing factor to the aggravation of the applicant’s psychological condition.
The applicant submitted that contrary to Dr Nagesh’s comments, not all of the applicant’s claims regarding events in the workplace had been refuted. Dr Nagesh ignored Dr Oldham’s evidence, the Mental Health Current Assessment, and the evidence from Dr Barham and Ms Rogers. The applicant submitted that Dr Nagesh’s opinions on causation would be given little weight. Dr Nagesh made the same diagnosis and WPI assessment as Dr Khan but had not engaged with the contemporaneous treating evidence.
The applicant submitted that her statement in the Factual Investigation Report was consistent with her other statement. There was no statement from the Berry CAC to rebut what the applicant had said about their working relationship. The applicant invited the Commission to draw a Jones v Dunkel inference about that omission.
Ms Maranik made a number of concessions about her personal interactions with the applicant and her experience of issues at the Berry facility. Ms Maranik said she was happy to take over Berry but the applicant had declined the offer. Ms Maranik acknowledged that the applicant and the Berry CAC did not get along. Ms Maranik acknowledged that the applicant told her she was stressed and not sleeping. Ms Maranik knew something was going on at Berry and the applicant was becoming frustrated although she didn’t realise the extent of the applicant’s difficulties.
Dr Khan gave the opinion that the workplace events were the main contributing factor to the aggravation of the applicant’s psychological condition. That opinion was consistent with the evidence from the treating practitioners. Although Dr Khan had a deficient understanding of the applicant’s pre-existing problems, the Commission would not have difficulty accepting his opinion on causation.
The applicant submitted that there was a reasonable explanation for the delay in making a claim and giving notice of the injury. The applicant was experiencing severe symptomology and suicidal ideation in the period after she stopped work. The claim was made within three years. The applicant submitted that ss 254 and 261 of the 1998 Act would not operate to bar the recovery of compensation.

Respondent’s submissions

The respondent noted the references to psychological symptoms in the clinical notes prior to the commencement of the applicant’s employment with the respondent and observed that there was no express reference to symptoms of anxiety or depression in the notes during the period of employment.
While there was reference to symptoms on 4 April 2022, the clinical notes did not make reference to any work-related problems causing those symptoms. The clinical notes were entirely unhelpful on the question of causation.
The respondent submitted that the clinical notes suggested a continuation of a pattern of anxiety and depression, ongoing for many years. If the applicant seriously thought work was primary cause of her symptoms this would have been reported and recorded.
The respondent said it was clear from Dr Nagesh’s report and the evidence of Ms Maranik that there were multiple stressors in the applicant’s life at the relevant time. The treating evidence referred to the death of the applicant’s dog, friends dying, rain and mould, renovations, the applicant’s brother verbally abusing her. These were clearly factors of some significance, otherwise the applicant would not have mentioned them to the people helping her. The applicant’s psychological condition was multifactorial. If there was any contribution from the applicant’s employment with the respondent, it was not the main contributing factor.
Dr Nagesh gave an opinion that on the balance of probabilities, the personal stressors had caused the injury.
Ms Maranik had been the applicant’s manager for the duration of her employment and had a good understanding of the applicant’s work life. Ms Maranik described the applicant as nervy with a tendency to get distressed and dwell on things.
While it was true that there were some issues involving the Berry facility, the applicant presumably did not think they were significant enough to have Ms Maranik take over responsibility for that facility. The applicant declined Ms Maranik’s offers in this regard. The applicant expressed a desire to retire having regard to her age and husband’s circumstances. Despite talking to the applicant frequently as her manager, Ms Maranik did not recall some of the events described by the applicant. Ms Maranik agreed that the applicant had expressed some frustrations but not to the degree alleged.
The respondent submitted that Ms Maranik’s evidence was consistent with the exit interview. The applicant did not tick any boxes to indicate her departure was for reasons related to the work environment such as the presence of conflict with a colleague. The applicant gave favourable responses regarding her employment conditions. The applicant indicated that her departure was related to health issues, which was consistent with the email evidence of medical issues associated with asthma or bronchitis at the time.
The respondent submitted that employment was not the main contributing factor to an aggravation of the applicant’s psychological condition. The applicant’s psychological condition had been ongoing for many years with remissions from time to time. In 2021, the applicant felt it was back.
With regard to the requirements of ss 254 and 261 of the 1998 Act, the respondent noted that the applicant told Dr Burhan about work related stress in August 2022. Work stress was reported to various other treatment providers several months after the applicant ceased work. The applicant could have pursued a claim at that point but did not do so for a very long time. The explanation for the delay was less than satisfactory.

Applicant’s submissions in reply

The applicant submitted that the exit interview should not be regarded as a fulsome explanation of the applicant’s circumstances at the time. The applicant did resign for health reasons and did identify resourcing as a problem.
Within months of ceasing work, the applicant’s symptoms were extremely severe. The Commission would accept the explanation for the delay given the seriousness of the symptoms the applicant was experiencing. The claim was only made when the applicant was well enough.
Dr Nagesh was willing to make a substantial WPI assessment in the circumstance that work was the main contributing factor to the condition.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Section 9 of the 1987 Act provides that a worker who has received an ‘injury’ shall receive compensation from the worker’s employer in accordance with the Act. The term ‘injury’ is relevantly defined in s 4 as it applies to this case as:
“4 Definition of ‘injury’
In this Act:
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, and
(c)     does not include (except in the case of a worker employed in or about a mine) a dust disease, as defined by the Workers’ Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942, or the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a dust disease, as so defined.”
“Psychological injury” is further defined in s 11A(3) of the 1987 Act:
“(3) A psychological injury is an injury (as defined in s 4) that is a psychological or psychiatric disorder. The term extends to include the physiological effect of such a disorder on the nervous system.”
In Attorney General's Department v K[1] (K) Roche DP summarised the principles to be applied in determining causation in cases of psychological injury at [52]:
“The following conclusions can be drawn from the above authorities:
(a)     employers take their employees as they find them. There is an ‘egg-shell psyche’ principle which is the equivalent of the ‘egg-shell skull’ principle (Spigelman CJ in Chemler at [40]);
(b)     a perception of real events, which are not external events, can satisfy the test of injury arising out of or in the course of employment (Spigelman CJ in Chemler at [54]);
(c)     if events which actually occurred in the workplace were perceived as creating an offensive or hostile working environment, and a psychological injury followed, it is open to the Commission to conclude that causation is established (Basten JA in Chemler at [69]);
(d)     so long as the events within the workplace were real, rather than imaginary, it does not matter that they affected the worker’s psyche because of a flawed perception of events because of a disordered mind (President Hall in Sheridan);
(e)     there is no requirement at law that the worker’s perception of the events must have been one that passed some qualitative test based on an ‘objective measure of reasonableness’ (Von Doussa J in Wiegand at [31]), and
(f)      it is not necessary that the worker’s reaction to the events must have been ‘rational, reasonable and proportionate’ before compensation can be recovered.”
[1] [2010] NSWWCCPD 76.
In AV v AW[2] Snell DP at [65]-[78] discussed the authorities on the main contributing factor test and noted:
“It follows that the test of ‘main contributing factor’ involves consideration of whether there were competing causal factors (both work and non-work related) of the aggravation, and whether on a consideration of relevant causal factors the employment represented the main contributing factor.
The following may be taken from the above:
(a) The test of ‘main contributing factor’ in s 4(b)(ii) is more stringent than that in s 4(b)(ii) in its previous form, which applied in conjunction with the test in s 9A. There will be one ‘main contributing factor’ to an alleged aggravation injury.
(b) 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 of whether the test of ‘main contributing factor’ is satisfied is both relevant and desirable. Its absence is not necessarily fatal, as satisfaction of the test is to be considered on the whole of the evidence.”
[2] [2020] NSWWCCPD 9.
A review of the clinical records in this case suggests that the applicant had a long history of psychological symptoms. Contrary to the impression given by the applicant’s statement evidence and the history provided to Dr Khan, it is apparent that the applicant had sought medical treatment and been prescribed antidepressant medication over a period of many years.
Shortly prior to the commencement of employment with the respondent, the applicant had sought assistance from her general practitioner for feelings of depression and anxiety. The applicant was prescribed venlafaxine in July 2021 prior to the commencement of employment with the respondent in August 2021.
The applicant did disclose a prior history of postnatal depression following the birth of her daughter and a diagnosis of ADHD. The extent and duration of the applicant’s psychological symptoms was, however, not recorded in a manner that is easy to reconcile with the general practitioner’s notes.
The inadequacy of the history of prior symptoms and treatment raises serious questions as to the reliability of Dr Khan’s opinion that the applicant sustained work-related psychological injury with symptoms first manifesting in late 2021.
Both the applicant’s statement evidence and Dr Khan’s reports also indicate that there were no identifiable non-work-related stressors contributing to the applicant’s psychological injury. This evidence is once again difficult to reconcile with the treating evidence and the statement evidence from Ms Maranik. That evidence identifies a range of concurrent stressors including the applicant’s dog’s ill-health and death in December 2021; the upkeep of the applicant’s family farm; the death of two friends; house repairs; issues involving the applicant’s brother; and other health issues.
These deficiencies in the applicant’s evidence and Dr Khan’s history raise real questions as to the reliability of Dr Khan’s opinion that employment was the main contributing factor to the applicant’s psychological condition.
Adding to the evidentiary challenges facing the applicant is the delay in reporting employment related symptoms. As noted by the respondent, there is no medical evidence confirming that the applicant was experiencing symptoms related to work during the period of her employment with the respondent. I do accept that the applicant was given a repeat prescription for venlafaxine on 10 March 2022 and reported an increase in symptoms to Dr Chalissery on 4 April 2022. The first report of a work-related injury was the mental health assessment dated 1 July 2022.
Ms Maranik has given evidence that the applicant presented as nervy with a tendency to dwell on things during her employment with the respondent. The applicant had disclosed a prior history of depression and problems with her previous employer to Ms Maranik. The applicant was observed to be frustrated with issues at work involving the Berry facility but it was not evident to Ms Maranik that the applicant was distressed to the degree alleged.
I accept that Ms Maranik’s evidence in this regard is broadly consistent with the applicant’s exit interview. The applicant described the work environment as pleasant and reported a positive employment experience. The applicant indicated that she strongly agreed that she was well supported by her immediate manager. No indication was given in the exit interview or the letter of resignation that the applicant was ceasing work due to psychological symptoms caused by employment with the respondent.
These factors, especially when considered together, weigh heavily against the applicant’s case.
It is, however, necessary for me to consider the evidence as a whole. The applicant has claimed in these proceedings that her injury was in the nature of an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. It is only necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation of that condition.
Given the problems with Dr Khan’s history and the applicant’s statement evidence, the applicant’s case turns heavily on the treating medical evidence.
I am satisfied that the clinical records disclose a deterioration in the applicant’s psychological symptoms around the time the applicant resigned from her employment in early April 2022. On 4 April 2022,the applicant reported panic attacks, feeling very anxious and very irritable, poor sleep and thoughts of self-harm. The applicant was prescribed diazepam to take at night in addition to her existing venlafaxine. It is apparent that the applicant took some time off work and was given a medical certificate to do so.
The applicant’s evidence is that around this time her sleep started to be seriously affected due to her increased workload and the stress she was under at work. The applicant had recently failed to meet a deadline which the applicant said seriously affected her. The applicant had a major panic attack and felt she could not cope. The applicant said she returned to work after a short time but could not continue and resigned.
The applicant has provided an explanation for her failure to mention her mental health issues at the time of her resignation. The applicant said her health was deteriorating rapidly and she just wanted to get out of there. The applicant said her psychological condition was the “health” reason for leaving the job as indicated in her exit interview. This evidence is broadly consistent with what is recorded in the general practitioner’s notes. The applicant said she could not handle talking about the Berry issues.
Although the clinical records did not record any work-related reason for the applicant’s increase in psychological symptoms during the period of employment or in the period immediately following the applicant’s resignation, the general practitioner’s notes are notably brief and lacking in detail generally. Many of the entries fail to give any reason for the consultation and noted only the prescription of medication or referrals.
I am satisfied that in the months following the cessation of work, the applicant’s psychological condition continued to deteriorate. A mental health care plan was prepared and the applicant was referred to a psychologist and psychiatrist. The treating evidence from July 2022 onwards consistently referred to workplace pressure as a cause for the applicant’s deterioration. Although other stressors were identified, the most prominent stressor appears to have been pressure during the applicant’s employment with the respondent.
For example, Dr Burhan prepared a detailed report on 2 August 2022 referring to an escalation of issues at work, particularly at one of the facilities the applicant managed. The applicant reported that she didn’t have access to the information she needed to do her job. It was noted that all of her career the applicant had worked to high standards. It was noted that the applicant resigned because she could not manage any longer. The applicant subsequently entered a phase of severe anxiety with depression and associated suicidal ideation. The applicant was briefly admitted to hospital in July 2022 before a longer admission in November 2022.

Dr Oldham, who saw the applicant at South Coast Private Hospital, recorded in a report on 7 December 2022 that the applicant had been having significant panic attacks related to her responsibilities as a manager of a group of old age facilities.
Similarly, the applicant’s treating psychologist, Ms Watts noted that when she first saw the applicant, she reported severe symptoms in the context of work stress. The applicant had ceased work due to becoming overwhelmed, feeling unsupported and under intense pressure.
It should be noted that all of these subsequent treatment providers took a history of concurrent personal stressors. It is also of noted that not all of the treatment providers appear to have been armed with a complete history of the applicant’s pre-existing psychological symptoms.
I am, however, comfortably satisfied that the evidence demonstrates a clear deterioration or aggravation of the applicant’s pre-existing condition that coincided temporally with the difficulties the applicant identified in the workplace and her resignation. I am also satisfied that workplace issues are identified in the treating evidence as the main or most prominent cause of the deterioration.
The applicant’s evidence as to the events in the workplace which she says triggered the deterioration in her condition does receive support from the evidence from Ms Maranik and the email correspondence attached to the respondent’s factual investigation report. Ms Maranik’s evidence confirmed that the applicant and the Berry CAC experienced difficulties in their working relationship, so much so that the CAC refused to work with the applicant. Ms Maranik confirmed that the applicant reported that she had been stressed and not sleeping. Ms Maranik confirmed that the applicant had told her that she had not been receiving responses to her emails to the general manager. Ms Maranik agreed that the applicant was becoming frustrated with the Berry facility and said she could not get her job done. Ms Maranik confirmed that there had been some issues involving a patient in March 2022 who had required recurrent hospitalisations.
In all the circumstances, I feel a sense of actual persuasion that there were real events in the workplace which the applicant perceived as hostile as described in her statement evidence. Having formed this view, I find little assistance in the report of Dr Nagesh who took the view that all of the applicant’s allegations relating to the workplace had been refuted. While Dr Nagesh formed the view that workplace events had not caused the psychological injury and that personal stressors had given rise to the injury, I am not satisfied that he has given adequate consideration to the real events in the workplace or the treating evidence in which those events were identified as the main or predominant cause of the applicant’s injury.
Considering the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the applicant did experience an aggravation, exacerbation or deterioration of her psychological condition in the course of employment with the respondent. I am further satisfied that the applicant’s employment with the respondent was the main contributing factor to the aggravation, exacerbation or deterioration of the psychological condition.
Notwithstanding my finding that the applicant has sustained a psychological injury which satisfies s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act, there remains a dispute with regard to the applicant’s ability to recover compensation having due to the delay in giving notice of the injury and making of claim for compensation for the purposes of ss 254 and 261 of the 1998 Act.
The applicant has addressed the delay in her statement evidence. The applicant has stated that she was not psychologically well enough to revisit the workplace events and make a claim. The applicant described having a “flight response”. The evidence confirms that the applicant was experiencing symptoms severe enough to require multiple hospital admissions in the 12 months after the cessation of work. Dr Khan has confirmed that it was only after the applicant received mental health treatment that she could process the impact of the workplace stressors and lodge the claim. Dr Khan has given evidence that mentally unwell patients will often repress their traumatic experiences until such time as they engage in treatment. A similar view has been expressed by the applicant’s treating psychiatrist, Dr Oldham.
For these reasons, I am satisfied for the purposes of s 254, that the failure to give notice of the injury as required by s 254(1) was occasioned by reasonable cause. For the purposes of s 261 of the 1998 Act, I am satisfied that the failure to make a claim for compensation within six months of the injury was also occasioned by reasonable cause. The claim was made within three years of the injury. I am satisfied, therefore, that the applicant’s psychological injury is compensable.
I am further satisfied that there is a medical dispute in this case arising from Dr Nagesh’s view that there was no WPI attributable to a workplace injury notwithstanding that he made a hypothetical assessment of 17% WPI, like Dr Khan.
It is, in my view, appropriate that the dispute be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to make an assessment of the degree of permanent impairment resulting from the injury. The materials to be referred to the Medical Assessor are to include all of the documents attached to the Application to Resolve a Dispute and Reply, together with my Certificate of Determination and this Statement of Reasons.

[2025] NSWPIC 200

13 May 2025