Kroes and Comcare (Compensation) - [2021] AATA 1917

Kroes and Comcare (Compensation) [2021] AATA 1917 (23 June 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2019/7241 & 2020/2846
Re:Janet Kroes
APPLICANT

ComcareAnd
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member Ward
Date:23 June 2021
Place:Adelaide

The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decisions.
...........................[Sgnd]................................
Member Ward
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – Workplace bullying – treatment costs – use of clinical framework for the delivery of health services – medical opinions needing to be based on factual findings
LEGISLATION
Safety, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act (1988)
CASES
Alamos and Comcare [2014] AATA 629
D’Amico and Comcare [2018] AATA 54
Precup and ASP Ship Management [2015] AATA 467
Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642
SECONDARY MATERIAL
Clinical Framework for the Delivery of Health Services
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member Ward
23 June 2021
INTRODUCTION

Mrs Kroes (“the Applicant”), has two claims for a determination before the Tribunal.
The Applicant had a claim for compensation arising out of her perception of workplace issues with another employee Mr Gary Chan, a fellow employee under training, culminating in an incident which occurred on 11 May 2012 and was continued by her perception of the stance taken by her employer, the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (the “Employer”) in dealing with the claim.
Her claim for compensation was accepted by a decision on 17 August 2012 for “adjustment reaction with mixed emotional features”.
This decision was reconsidered and on 10 December 2012, the Review Officer decided that the determination of 17 August 2012 was correct.
That decision referred to submissions put by the Employer Department, which concluded that Mr Chan’s co-workers “may have perceived that he was angry as he had been in significant pain due to a medical issue”.
This claim was further considered on 2 July 2013, the Comcare delegate (“the Respondent”) deciding that the Applicant continued to suffer from the effects of her condition “adjustment reaction with mixed emotional features”. It is significant that at that time, the General Practitioner certified the Applicant as being fit to return to work, but not at the previous workplace. This view was supported by Dr Gertler who reported to Comcare that the Applicant would be prone to relapse if she were to go back to work with the trainee Mr Chan, who caused her to develop the accepted condition.
It is noted that challenges were made to these determinations by the employing department. A challenge to the decisions was also commenced in the AAT in 2013. That challenge was discontinued and so, for a considerable period of time, the Applicant’s claim has been accepted and she has received treatment for the injuries. She has received assistance by way of a return to work program. She was treated by the Psychologist, Mr Goodluck
A request for funding of the psychological treatment with regard to her ongoing problem was made. This related to the payment for ten psychological consultations for treatment to be arranged with Mr Goodluck.
By determination dated 17 June 2019 that request was denied. The reviewable decision affirming that determination on 17 June 2019 was made on 13 September 2019.
Subsequently, the Respondent contended that the Applicant no longer suffered from any compensable psychiatric condition. On 12 February 2020, the Respondent determined that it had no present liability for medical expenses and incapacity payments in respect of the accepted condition pursuant to sections 16 and 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act (1988) (the “SRC Act”). This was affirmed on 10 May 2020
A report was then obtained by the Respondent from Dr Frost, Psychiatrist, dated 20 May 2020.
Both of these applications were the subject of the hearing before the Tribunal, being case file no. 2019/7241 which dealt with the ten psychological treatments and case file no. 2020/2846 which dealt with the more significant determination, namely that the Respondent had no present liability for medical expenses and incapacity payments at all.
Thus, the second application, 2020/2846, was more significant than the first.
For reasons set out below, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant continues to suffer from her accepted injury and requires treatment for it, thus the two reviewable decisions will be set aside.
CONSIDERATION
The Applicant was born on 11 September 1962. She was employed by the Department in 2008. She performed administrative clerical duties.
During the course of her employment, the Applicant dealt with a fellow employee, Mr Chan, who was under training this was in 2012. Whilst the claim was accepted, it is important to re-establish the background events.
In the course of her duties, it was necessary for the Applicant to direct Mr Chan to undertake certain tasks. This was a problematic relationship. The Applicant’s perception was that Mr Chan would not cooperate with her directions and would become angry with her when she made suggestions. She also indicated this occurred to other people and that is confirmed by a departmental investigation that had taken place around these incidents. That is, others had described difficulties with Mr Chan.
These difficulties culminated to a degree in events which occurred on 11 May 2012 when Mr Chan was asked to assist with moving a table.
The particulars of such event are well set out in Dr Reutens report of 23 July 2013. The Applicant told the Dr Reutens that in April 2012 she advised her superiors that Mr Chan was not coping with the work. He was unable to prioritise work and would anger easily.
The Applicant indicated that she and her co-worker were frightened to ask Mr Chan to undertake duties because he would snarl. She was intimidated by him.
There was an incident in which Mr Chan was asked by the Applicant to deliver paper to another level several times. When she checked, it had not been done.
The incident occurred while she was asking Mr Chan to assist her with moving a table to a different level on 11 May. Her allegation is that Mr Chan pushed her away with his body, slammed the table onto a trolley, had difficulty manipulating the trolley through glass doors, and was acting in a rough way.
The actual physical incident itself is not particularly momentous, but it is clear from her evidence, and the Tribunal accepts, that prior to this incident of moving the table, the Applicant had concerns in dealing with Mr Chan due to his manner. She gave an instance when she was going to the shop and would ask Mr Chan and others if they wanted a coffee. She found his response to be intimidating. She was questioned as to why she would offer to get a coffee for somebody she did not get on with. The Tribunal rejects any implied criticism of her for that offer. It would be usual in an office situation that a person who was wanting to get on with somebody who did not seem to be pleasant to make that offer. It would be antagonistic for example if the Applicant were to ask everyone except Mr Chan if there was something she could get them at the shop.
Thus, when the incident occurred, the evidence supports that there was a pre-existing level of animosity or antipathy from Mr Chan perceived by the Applicant.
The Tribunal accepts that this is a situation where a glare or a grunt or a snappy response to an otherwise reasonable request could be taken as intimidatory in those circumstances.
This is important to reflect upon as there is video surveillance of part of the incident that occurred in May 2012 before the Tribunal.[1] It does not show a dramatic scene. It has been forwarded to doctors and other people involved in the assessment of this claim over many years. This is generally put forward on the basis that it does not disclose anything particularly bad. A number of the people who have commented on this case, such as doctors and investigators, have made reference to that.
[1] Exhibit 5.
The Applicant considers that the quality of the video is not particularly good because it does not reflect an accurate picture of the event as the frames are reduced for real time transmission. The video demonstrates Mr Chan struggling to a degree getting the table through the doors, which is consistent with the Applicant’s evidence. She expressed concerns that the metal table might break the glass doors and the level of aggression evinced by Mr Chan.
The Applicant was asking Mr Chan to assist her in moving the table carefully through the doors but Mr Chan took over this project in what she describes as an aggressive manner in his dealings with her. There is also the issue of the glaring and noises being made by Mr Chan that are not picked up by the video, but noted in her descriptions of the event.
A number of the medical practitioners who have seen the video, such as Dr North after writing the report and relying on other people’s descriptions, have indicated this did not display a particularly traumatic event.
However, this is not a case of post-traumatic stress disorder following some significantly troublesome event. The case of the Applicant is not based on the video, but on a history of difficulty with Mr Chan, of which the video records one incident and highlights problems with regards to his management.
In her statement dated 18 September 2020 the Applicant said of this incident:
“I believe Chan’s aggressive action towards me was intentional and an extension of the intimidating behaviour he had been expressing towards me for some time.”
These problems arise with regards to the Applicant’s perception as to the handling of the situation. Her view was that she could not continue to work in the same area as Mr Chan given his aggressive behaviour which was directed at her. However, she found that no steps were taken to remove him (as the aggressor in her mind) from the workplace, but rather she would have to move to another part of the building. She described having panic attacks at the thought of encountering him. He would deliver mail, so these fears of an encounter were not fanciful. She moved to a different building as a consequence.
One of the Applicant’s supervisors was Mr Gregory Broadfoot.
As noted above, there was an earlier application before the Tribunal in which the Employer was challenging the Respondent’s decision to accept the Applicant’s claim for compensation. As noted, those proceedings were discontinued.
In a statement dated 11 July 2013 prepared for those abandoned proceedings, Mr Broadfoot advised of an incident involving the Applicant and Mr Chan on 11 May 2012. This is confirmation that there was indeed an incident. This means that the people who have seen the video footage later and thought this was essentially a “non-event” are not correct. An incident occurred beyond what was exposed on the video. The consequences of the incident were handled by Mr Turley who was a subordinate to Mr Broadfoot.
In his statement which was provided to be used against the Applicant’s claim, Mr Broadfoot said:
“It was evident that Ms Kroes’ reaction to the events of 11 May 2012 were extreme and Ms Kroes was apparently becoming more distressed as the week went on. It seemed that Ms Kroes’ anger at the beginning of the week had turned into anxiety and fear by the end of the week such that Ms Kroes was no longer able to occupy the same vicinity as Mr Chan despite having met with him on a number of occasions since the incident”.
These meetings ‘since the incident’ to which Mr Broadfoot refers appear to be conciliatory meetings organised by the Employer to try to mediate a settlement of the Applicant and Mr Chan’s relationship. This again confirms that there was an incident on 11 May 2012. The Tribunal has no reason to disbelieve that the incident occurred, nor that the event was a one-off situation, but rather something of a culmination of a build-up at that time.
It is not clear upon what basis Mr Broadfoot had to say that the Applicant’s reactions at that time were extreme. They were reactions from which she suffered.
However, Mr Broadfoot then goes on to state with regards to the meetings they had on a number of occasions that:
“During one such meeting, while under duress, Mr Chan made the comment that people would know if he was angry because he would punch a wall”.
Mr Broadfoot said that he later had to counsel Mr Chan that such a comment:
“was inappropriate and [Mr Broadfoot] reminded him of his responsibilities under the APS Code of Conduct”.
In her evidence, the Applicant referred to those comments. They were spoken in response to her concerns raised in conciliatory meetings that Mr Chan’s actions were causing her fear.
It is important that Mr Broadfoot had reason to counsel Mr Chan (and that is taken as formal employment counselling) on that conduct being inappropriate. It is a palpable example of a violent disposition that she has described.
The Applicant’s evidence was that Mr Chan’s statement had made her more frightened rather than re-assuring her, which was perhaps the intention of the meeting. It is noted that Mr Broadfoot says that Mr Chan was very contrite that his fellow team members had formed an adverse perception of him. He thought that was to Mr Chan’s credit. This was taken from a document prepared by the Employer, of which Mr Broadfoot was a member, to review the decision that was made by the Respondent to accept the Applicant’s claim.
It is of interest that Mr Broadfoot counselled Mr Chan “later”. The Tribunal takes that to mean he did not pull him up during the course of the meeting when the Applicant was present. Thus, the contrition that is referred to regarding his fellow team members forming an adverse perception of him must have occurred at some later time than at that meeting. Not a great deal turns on that exact time of those feelings of contrition, but the knowledge of Mr Broadfoot of Mr Chan’s outburst is important.
The need to return to the original events that gave rise to this accepted complaint arises from the conduct of the Respondent in these current proceedings. It seemed that the Respondent wanted to go back to revisit the severity of the original complaint to recontest the issue as to whether it occurred or not, or whether it was the cause of symptoms.
This was the matter that the Tribunal put to the Respondent’s Counsel during the course of the hearing. Counsel indicated that a review of the severity (or lack of it) of the original incident was relevant in view of the request for the funding for the ten treatments, and the issue as to whether the Applicant continued to be affected in a way that would give continuing rise to compensation from her workplace.
Therefore, information before the Tribunal for these hearings, such as “I have reviewed the CCTV footage and I do not believe it supports the account of the trolley incident as described by Ms Kroes”[2] needs to be dealt with. So, there is no doubt, the Tribunal does not agree with that assessment. However, the Tribunal notes that assessment was made for the purpose of earlier proceedings (then abandoned) in which it appears the entire event was put in issue.
[2] Statement of Brad Turley, 10 July 2013, previous AAT hearing.
The Tribunal accepts it is fair for the Department to investigate allegations that are made. It is also fair that there is a certain level of cynicism in the assessment of claims for compensation.
The Department arranged for the Applicant to be examined by Dr Peter Cotton, who was a Psychologist, the consultation occurring on 24 October 2012. Dr Cotton prepared a report, and it is noted that this report was obtained prior to the decision to accept the Applicant’s claim for compensation and the Tribunal here proceeds on the basis that particular decision was made in knowledge of this report.
For reasons that are not clear, the Psychologist considered that he should gain information as to the Employer’s perspective of this matter.[3] Accordingly, he spoke to Mr Broadfoot.
[3] That is, what was his role? Was he making a psychological assessment of her fitness to work or conducting a fact-finding investigation as to the veracity of her complaints?
Mr Broadfoot described Mr Chan as being a straightforward man who was courteous and in relation to whom no other staff had reported experiencing any concerns. He described Mr Chan as probably having some “borderline learning issues”.
It is clear to see from reading the report of Dr Cotton that Mr Broadfoot’s comments, as recorded, amount to advocacy against the Applicant. He made allegations of inappropriate content and derogatory content towards to Mr Chan appearing in emails. The Tribunal was not directed to these and indeed, there is a caveat that the Applicant was not directly a party to some of the email communications, so why he felt it was necessary to make these references is not clear. There were also unsubstantiated allegations of inappropriate treatment towards Mr Chan. Importantly, Mr Broadfoot reiterated that there were no concerns reported by any other staff regarding Mr Chan. These sentiments are in clear contradiction to Mr Broadfoot’s statement to the Tribunal (noted above) that he had to counsel Mr Chan on his inappropriate conduct.
The medical evidence confirms that the Applicant was not able to return to work at the same place and that she continued to have concerns with regards to Mr Chan and the trauma she suffered as a consequence of his intimidatory behaviour and the response of the employer.
A situation arose in which the Applicant was in the Darwin city area with another employee. She saw Mr Chan on the other side of an intersection. Her evidence is that Mr Chan walked away from that area and right up to the corner of the intersection and he was glaring at her in an intimidatory fashion. That was her perception, but her perception was such that she cowered behind the co-worker and would not move until Mr Chan went away. She said the reason for that was that she did not want him to see where she then worked. It indicates a significant ongoing level of distress on her part.
Such was her concern that the Applicant filed an application for a Personal Violence Restraining Order in the local Court of Darwin. In those proceedings, Mr Broadfoot filed an affidavit dated 3 July 2015 for the purpose of the restraining order proceedings. In it he said he had seen the footage of the events of 11 May 2012 and swore on his oath that he did not believe it supported the Applicant’s description of the incident, namely that Mr Chan was behaving angrily and aggressively when moving the table. He said Mr Chan was very concerned that his fellow team members had formed an adverse perception of him.
Mr Broadfoot attacked views put forward by the Applicant’s Psychologist on the basis that “despite Ms Kroes reaction to it, the evidence suggests that the incident with the trolley was not serious”. He also did not think Mr Chan presented a greater threat to Ms Kroes’ safety than anyone else. He said that Mr Chan was very committed to working with his colleagues and expressed concern that his actions may have been misinterpreted.
This makes no reference to the incident during a meeting when Mr Broadfoot had to subsequently counsel Mr Chan after he said that people would know he was angry because he would punch a wall. The Applicant’s evidence of that statement indicates that it was something that further increased her fear rather than assisting with the mediation resolution of which it was a part. That statement, given for different purposes, is at odds with Mr Broadfoot’s affidavit put in to resist the application for the restraining order.
During the hearing of the current matter, it was put to the Applicant that the application for the restraining order was not successful. For the purposes of these applications, that does not matter. What it demonstrates is that the Applicant, at the time she saw Mr Chan and said he was acting in an intimidatory way, clearly had not recovered from the condition that led to her not being able to work in the same space as Mr Chan.

The Respondent referred the Tribunal to medical evidence that had been obtained. It is worth noting here that the medical evidence seems more to assess the entitlement to compensation rather than the treatment and management of the Applicant so that she could return to work. That is especially so with regards to the last medical report obtained which was that of Dr Frost. Dr Frost was not asked, for example, as to the Applicant’s ability to work, nor as to a regime of treatment that might enhance her ability to return to work. It appears these were not factors under the contemplation of the Respondent when commissioning that report.
The Tribunal has to consider a number of reports and it appears the Applicant said she was improving, or it was interpreted by the doctors that she had improved, as compared to the continuous attendances at the general practitioner wherein symptoms had been reported as being ongoing. Her symptoms had been reported as fluctuating (towards improvement) but when one looks at the observations made by the doctors, there are clearly problems still evident. That is, she might say she was better, but she continued to get treatment - prescription of medication - and most importantly, she has not able to return to the same workplace for employment. That has been consistent situation (up to the most recent evidence before the Tribunal) regarding visits to the general practitioner.
It has been put to the Tribunal that there should be caution taken with respect to the evidence of the treating providers. That is on the basis of the case of D’Amico and Comcare.[4]
[4] [2018] AATA 54 (at 53).
The Tribunal does not accept, as a general rule, that the evidence of treating medical practitioners should be ignored because they are advocates. Each witness must be assessed. Here, the GP notes provide the record of consultations and the recommended treatments. They demonstrate a continuum of the need for treatment for the accepted injuries over time since 2012.
The Tribunal certainly takes into account the fact that one should have regard when considering the evidence of treating practitioners that they might fall into a position of advocacy, but that needs to be determined in each case, not given as an absolute truism in every case.
The Respondent has put material before the Tribunal, being the ‘Clinical Framework for the Delivery of Health Services’.
It is noted this has been referred to in other Tribunal cases. In the matter of Alamos and Comcare[5], the learned Deputy President noted that this was a document considered in the Victorian compensation jurisdiction. It is referred to as being “supported by Comcare and other Federal and State organisations, it is not official Commonwealth Government policy”.
[5] [2014] AATA 629.
In that case, regular physiotherapy was disallowed. I would see that situation as being different to this case. The regular visits to the psychologist have been caused by injury which has been drawn out to a degree by the adversarial nature of the claim. That is not the cause of it, but to a large degree in this case one can sense it is preventing a healing. It would be akin to someone having physiotherapy for a physical injury but then the employer insisting they undertake work which aggravates the injured area, thus reducing the efficacy of it. I think it would be odd in such circumstances that such a course of action would thwart a claim.
In any event, one cannot sense advocacy in a general practitioner’s notes when simply recording the complaints that are being made by their patient. One might need to look closely at the complaints being made to see whether they are being made solely to support a claim, as distinct from being genuine. There, one can look at the treatment that is prescribed as a result of the complaint (here, the use of antidepressant medication) and the descriptions by the doctor of the effect of the person in a case such as this where psychiatric injury is the main cause of the visit to the doctor.
The comments with regards to the case of D’Amico were made specifically as to how the Tribunal was to accept the information provided by the treating psychologist, Mr Goodluck. It is appropriate in analysing that evidence that we do look at a measure of advocacy as this complaint has been made by some doctors. This is a matter for the Tribunal to determine.
The Tribunal accepts that there has been a condition which has continued to affect the Applicant right up to assessment. Mr Goodluck had been treating the symptoms. The Tribunal cannot ignore the circumstances in which that occurred when there have been active steps taken, challenging the claim. If that, in turn, leads to the need to deal with them, it follows as a matter of common sense. One would expect the Applicant to be talking to her treating psychologist about the problems with the claim as part and parcel of her condition.
The point made by the Respondent is taken with regards to Mr Goodluck. There is a sense of advocacy with respect to the Applicant’s ongoing claim. However, his evidence has been regarded but it is not the determining factor in the decision with regards to the second claim. The Applicant has obtained medical certificates over time which refer to work-related stress. The most recent certificate being obtained in January 2021 for the purposes of this hearing. The certificate showing that the Applicant was unable to undertake work-related activities.
In making the assessment as to the continuance of these injuries, reference is again made to a report of the psychologist Mr Cotton of 4 November 2012. In his report he noted the incorrect information as has been discussed above and provided by Mr Broadfoot. Importantly, Mr Broadfoot reiterated that there were no concerns reported by any other staff regarding Mr Chan. These sentiments are in clear contradiction to Mr Broadfoot’s statement to the Tribunal (again noted above) that he had to counsel Mr Chan on his inappropriate conduct.
Mr Cotton’s report has been provided to other specialists who have assessed the Applicant for the purpose of the claim. If the Respondent was going to rely on that evidence, the letter of instruction given to other experts should have qualified the history.
As the Tribunal accepts there has been a continuation of symptoms from May 2012 up to this assessment, then medical reports based on this not being the case are of little assistance. There is a necessity for proof of facts upon which medical opinions are based for the opinions to be acceptable.[6]
[6] Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642.
Most of the medico-legal doctors who have assessed the Applicant have referred to problems in her resuming her pre-injury employment and returning to the workplace. These are set out as follows:
(a)Peter Cotton, psychologist, 4 November 2012 – “She should not immediately resume her pre-injury employment”;
(b)Dr Gertler, psychiatrist, 16 April 2013 – “[The Applicant] will in my opinion have difficulty returning to the workplace if she had even minimal contact with the trainee”;
(c)Dr Reutens, psychiatrist, 23 July 2013 – “I do not consider Ms Kroes could perform her normal duties as they were before the injury unless she was working with a different supervisor and in a different building”;
(d)Professor Arya, psychiatrist, 24 January 2016 – “Adjustment Disorder, chronic, with symptoms of anxiety and fear, secondary to work-related situational stressors”;
(e)Dr Hundertmark, psychiatrist, 16 December 2016 – “Noting that she will require a graduated return to work plan” and that “if she cannot move on from her past issues with the Department, she may well have become totally and permanently incapacitated for employment”;
(f)Dr Lisa Barrett, psychiatrist, 13 April 2018 – “Currently she is not fit for any position”; and
(g)Dr Little, psychiatrist, 18 July 2019 – Confirming that she did not have capacity to engage in some form of employment.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal as to alternate causes of these problems that have had the same attributes the whole way through. There have been other life events that have caused her upset which one would expect, but none have been of such significance as to act essentially as a novus actus interveniens in this case. This would include matters such as deaths in the family which would affect her mood. It is common sense and commonplace that that would occur. There were other family-related issues discussed from time to time. The Tribunal finds that her ability to cope with family issues and normal vicissitudes of life would be adversely affected by the accepted injuries. That is not to find that those other matters have crowded out the accepted injury.
Whilst there is some medical evidence that promotes a view that this was a minor incident and there was nothing wrong with the Applicant, there is ample evidence to suggest she did suffer injury as a consequence of her employment and she has continued to do so.
Claim Generally – matter number 2020/2846
Conclusion
The Applicant continues to suffer from the accepted injury. On that basis, the decision made on 10 May 2020 is set aside.
Treatment Expenses – matter number 2019/7241
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant requires treatment for the psychiatric condition.
It may be in the adversarial circumstances of this claim that there has been advocacy against the Applicant in matters arising from the claim. This would have the effect of prolonging her condition. It is entirely appropriate that claims are investigated, as noted above.
It is in the interests of both parties that recovery (as much as possible) is a fundamental goal. The parties in the perfect application of this system are working together to the same end.
This mutually beneficial approach was discussed by the Tribunal in the matter of Precup and ASP Ship Management[7] where the learned Deputy President made the following appropriate observation in regard to serious ongoing treatment needs:
“The company must consider each claim made by Mr Precup on its merits, which include the relevant circumstances in which the treatment was obtained. This does not mean that the company cannot inform Mr Precup that it will continue to pay for compensation for recurring treatment at a particular rate until circumstances change. This is obviously the most efficient manner in which compensation can be determined and paid and would be to the benefit of both parties. In my view, in determining that the appropriate amount of compensation payable should change, a relevant consideration should be whether there has been prior consultation with Mr Precup and, if necessary, his medical advisers” (emphasis added).
[7] [2015] AATA 467.
In the instance of the current claim, it may be a more profitable use of the Respondent’s energy to work on the treatment that the Applicant is having to see whether her condition can be improved. A psychiatric view directing the psychologist may well assist. However, there is no doubt on the findings here that treatment is required.
However, The Applicant requires treatment and has a rapport with Mr Goodluck. The nature of the treatment can be reviewed but at present she finds it beneficial. The focus might shift with further assessment. That will be a matter for the doctors.
Conclusion
Therefore, a decision to reject a claim of ten treatments from Mr Goodluck will be set aside. As at the date of this decision, the amount of compensation payable to the Applicant shall include the costs of ten further psychological treatments with Mr Goodluck. In the event she has had the treatment but has paid for it herself, she should be reimbursed at the schedule rate of the costs of the treatment she has had with Mr Goodluck from the time of the decision until this order.
DECISION
The reviewable decisions in matter numbers 2019/7241 and 2020/2846 are set aside.
The Applicant is to have her costs of the action, to be assessed by the Tribunal if not agreed.

I certify that the preceding eighty-six (86) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member Ward.

...........................[Sgnd]....................................
Legal Administrative Assistant

Dated: 23 June 2021

Date of hearing: 15 & 16 February 2021

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Bill Piper

Piper Ellis Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondent
Bradley Dean

8 Wentworth Chambers