Lisa Silk and Comcare - [2012] AATA 638

[2012] AATA 638

Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

File Number

2011/3414

Re

Lisa Silk

APPLICANT

And

Comcare

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal
Deputy President S D Hotop
Dr J Chaney, Member

Date 24 September 2012

Place Perth
The decision under review is affirmed.
...............[sgd]....................................................
S D Hotop, Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employees – applicant employed by Centrelink – applicant suffered major depressive disorder in November 2004 – applicant's major depressive disorder a compensable injury – applicant had ceased to suffer effects of major depressive disorder on 13 December 2007 – applicant not entitled to compensation for medical treatment or for incapacity for work in respect of major depressive disorder from 13 December 2007 – applicant suffered aggravation of major depressive disorder on 26 July 2010 – aggravation of major depressive disorder contributed to, to a significant degree, by applicant's employment – aggravation of major depressive disorder a disease – aggravation of major depressive disorder suffered as result of reasonable administrative action taken in reasonable manner in respect of employment – aggravation of major depressive disorder not a compensable injury – respondent not liable to pay compensation to applicant for aggravation of major depressive disorder – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), s 4(1), s 5A, s 5B, s 7(4) and s 14(1)

CASES
Comcare v Canute (2005) 148 FCR 232
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve (2012) 199 FCR 463
Drenth v Comcare [2012] FCAFC 86
Re Dunstan and Comcare [2012] AATA 567
Hart v Comcare (2005) 145 FCR 29
Re Wiegand and Comcare [2010] AATA 790
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President S D Hotop
Dr J Chaney, Member
24 September 2012
Introduction

Lisa Silk (“the applicant”), who was born in September 1969, has been employed by Centrelink since October 1997 and, from August 2007, she was working as an Authorised Review Officer at Centrelink’s premises in Bunbury, Western Australia.
On 1 November 2010 the applicant lodged with Centrelink a completed Claim for Workers’ Compensation form signed by her and dated 28 September 2010. In that form the applicant described the condition for which she was claiming compensation as “deep depression” and she indicated that she had first noticed that condition in November 2004 and subsequently on 12 August 2010 and had consulted Dr Irene Humphries at each of those times. She described the factors which she claimed had caused her condition as follows:
“ psychological isolation, stress, customer aggression, staff aggression, constant harassment, no control over workload, discrimination”
and elaborated upon the “chain of events” leading up to her suffering that condition in an accompanying document (set out in paragraph 7 below).
On 4 March 2011 a delegate of Comcare (“the respondent”) made a determination under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“SRC Act”) that the respondent was not liable under s 14 of that Act to pay compensation to the applicant for “major depressive disorder”.
On 25 July 2011, following a request by the applicant for a reconsideration of the abovementioned determination, another delegate of the respondent made a “reviewable decision” under s 62 of the SRC Act varying that determination by finding that:
·the respondent was liable under s 14 of the SRC Act to pay compensation to the applicant for “major depressive disorder” suffered on 1 November 2004 but that, as at 13 December 2007, the applicant had ceased to suffer incapacity or require medical treatment as a result of that “injury” and, accordingly, was not entitled to compensation in respect of that “injury” from that date;
·on 26 July 2010 the applicant suffered an “aggravation of major depressive disorder” but that the respondent was not liable under s 14 of the SRC Act to pay compensation to the applicant in respect of that condition.
On 23 August 2011 the applicant lodged with the Tribunal an application for review of the abovementioned reviewable decision of 25 July 2011.
The Evidence
The evidence before the Tribunal comprised:
· the “T Documents” (T1−T72, pp 1-350) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth);
·    Exhibits A1−A6 tendered by the applicant;
·    Exhibits R1-R6 tendered by the respondent;
·    the oral evidence of the applicant and of the following additional witnesses:
−Dr Irene Humphries, Dr Frederick Ng, and Ms Barbara Lamparski (who were called by the applicant); and
−Dr Eileen Tay, Dr Lawrence Terace, and Ms Meredith Hough (who were called by the respondent).
The Applicant’s Evidence
The applicant confirmed that she had prepared a typed statement setting out the “chain of events” leading up to her suffering the mental condition for which she had claimed compensation in this case. She said that she had prepared that statement, which was attached to her claim form dated 28 September 2010, in the period from 13 August 2010 to 28 September 2010. The contents of that statement are as follows:
“ Chain of events (in no particular order) leading up to first injury 1998 to 2004
1.In one of my team meetings staff were being derogatory towards another staff member who was not present or part of that team. They were implying that the staff member was sleeping around to get to the top. I told this staff member about the comments and innuendo towards them. When my team found out I had said something to this person I was then treated like a leper, they would not talk to me, or involve me in team events. They totally ostracised me and I felt completely isolated and unsupported which lead to me taking personal leave.
2.A comment from a Customer Service Advisor (CSA) when I moved from the Bunbury Call Centre to Canberra was that an ASO 6 in Canberra is equivalent to a tea leady (sic) in the Bunbury Call Centre. This made me feel belittled and undervalued as a person.
3.There are numerous episodes of customer aggression where I was not supported by staff or Line Managers as example of this is:
a.A Customer came in for an EBT (urgent payment), they were verbally abusive and physically threatening, I pressed the duress alarm, the cops came and the customer was escorted from the premises. After these types of events I was not provided with any debriefing sessions and when I spoke with a Manager from the Area Office I was told to write my own warning letter to the customer and to forward it to the customer, when I did, no further action was taken to provide me with any support. During these times I felt afraid and feared for my safety.
4.I had to obtain an Apprehended Violence Order from the courts against an abusive and threatening customer because I felt unsupported, in danger and afraid for other staff. Again no support was provided by management during this process or after. This customer ended up in prison for breaking the order.
5.Whilst training senior staff (CSA’s) on Parenting Payment I was given a hard time as I was a new staff member and they believed I shouldn’t be the trainer as there should be a hierarchy based on tenure not ability, this made me feel very uncomfortable, I said I didn’t want to conduct the training any more as I was not being respected but was encouraged by the training co-ordinator to continue.
6.When I transferred back to the Bunbury office as a Deputy Manager (promotion) I was not provided with any training, support or hand over.
7.I was asked to go to an Area Western Australian Managers meeting to deliver a presentation on scheduling in a Customer Service Centre (CSC) environment, the meeting was running late and when it was my time to present I was told to hurry up by the chair even though I had not contributed to the meeting running late. This made me feel uncomfortable, rushed, bullied and not respected as an individual.
8.When the air conditioner was broken down I was yelled and screamed at by a staff member because I shut the back security door to the office. I had arranged for another seat for this staff member so she could sit in a cooler spot, I explained her behaviour towards me was unacceptable. As a result of me talking to her about her behaviour she started talking about me behind my back and telling everyone I had no right to tell her that her behaviour was unacceptable. Again I did not get any support from management with dealing with the behaviours of this staff member.
9.When I had to do a harassment preliminary investigation I found out the accused staff members wife was actually my son’s teacher. I asked the school to move my son without divulging any information as I was not allowed to come off this case. My Manager had directed me even though I requested to come off. I found it extremely upsetting to know that my son was being put in an awkward position and having to move classes because of my work for which I had no control. I felt helpless and extremely unsupported, totally isolated and afraid for my son who was ten at the time.
10.At a Human Resources meeting in Canberra, I was bullied and intimidated by two Call Centre Mangers in front of a number of Managers in a meeting, which resulted in the HR Manager approaching me at the end of the meeting. She apologised for the two Managers behaviours towards me.
11.When undertaking Centrelink studies (MMDP) I was singled out as not being able to travel to WA but other participants were approved to do so. When I asked why I couldn’t travel to WA. I was told that it was because of the costs and that no one was travelling to WA. I was told by my line manager at the time that ‘I had dug myself a hole and he wasn’t going to help me to get out of it’.
12.I was forced to be my sister’s line manager in the Customer Service Centre (CSC) environment even though I advised my Manager that this was in direct conflict of interest of the APS regulations.
13.I had denied a staff member’s approval to do outside employment because the employment was deemed a conflict of interest as per HR guidelines, however, a Manager from Perth told me that I was to change my decision or he would. Again I felt unsupported and humiliated because as (sic) I was following the appropriate guidelines.
14.When two senior staff (CSA and Deputy Manager) were alleged to be using electronic facilities inappropriately I reported this to a Manager in Perth, I was advised to follow this up and investigate it myself. I was very concerned of the repercussions if I investigated this any further because of the position the staff held in the CSC.
15.As a Deputy Manager I had been excluded by many staff. They would not talk to me, refused to listen to what I had to say, nor acknowledge my presence. Instead they went to the other Deputy Manager who then failed to direct those staff back to me. Decisions were made regularly without consulting me first. I did not raise this with Deputy Manager at the time because I felt intimidated by them and I was well aware of the power they wielded within the office. On numerous occasions, I witnessed the Deputy Manager treat other staff in a very unprofessional manner and not in accordance with our APS Code of Conduct and APS Values. I felt utterly disempowered and unvalued as an individual.
Chain of events leading up to second injury from 2004 to 2010
In 2005 I started recording workplace events that occurred which made me feel intimidated, undervalued, unappreciated, bullied, worthless, unsupported and harassed. I started writing in my diaries as a strategy to help me cope.
16.In an E-mail dated 28^th January 2004, meeting with staff re seating arrangements. Two staff were upset because of an office refit and as a result they were not able to sit together. I gave them the option of going away with a seating plan and coming up with some options because every option which had been presented to them was not acceptable. This suggestion was also rejected. They eventually came up with one idea which I was happy to support and then they rejected it, eventually they asked if they could work on the seating plan and come up with a new plan. I supported them, however, this did not deter them from approaching the social work team and asking them to resolve the seating issue. During this time I provided a summary of events via email to the Area Business Manager which led to the move, consultation meetings held with staff, communication to them and union consultation meetings held. During this process I received no support or guidance from the Area Business Manager, nor my Customer Service Manager.
17.In 2005 when I returned from a period of personal leave I was advised that I was being moved to the Call Centre environment even though there were empty workstations in the office. I asked my Line Manager if the Call Centre was aware that I would be requiring a workstation in the Call Centre and was advised ‘yes’, however when I went over to the Call Centre they had no knowledge of me needing a workstation and eventually found a workstation for me to sit at. It was in an area where I totally (sic) isolated, there were 50 empty seats around me.
18.On two occasions in April 2005 my Manager at the time mentioned voluntary redundancies. This made me feel unwanted and that he wanted me to ask for one so that I would leave the organisation.
19.On 3 June 2005 I wrote to the Business Manager stating I felt bullied by him because I had sought advice from CPSU in relation to my position. He threatened to ignore my queries because of fear of CPSU involvement. At no time during this period was an independent person involved, suggested nor was I offered support. I put in writing the way the business manager had dealt with me, caused me duress and stress and again my feelings were ignored, not acknowledged or acted upon in relation to support for me. I also felt I couldn’t take it any higher as these were Managers from the Area Office that I was dealing with, this made me feel isolated, with nowhere to go and totally helpless.
20.On 21 December 2005, I was asked to attend a meeting with the Manager and a Business Manager to discuss employment options within the Bunbury Customer Service Centre. At the meeting I explained that I felt intimated (sic) by having two senior male Managers meeting with me alone and that I should have had the opportunity to have a support person come along. During this meeting I became upset and expressed my concern over how my situation was being managed. There was a lack of communication and no explanations why the option of me returning to the Team Manager role was not considered. I became very upset and I requested the meeting cease because I was not afforded any support. Once I regained my composure I approached the Business Manager on a one to one basis and again expressed my concerns of the lack of communication and support. I was advised during this conversation because of an impending retirement they had to review my role and if a suitable role at my current level could not be found I would have to consider the prospect of a reduction by consent or being declared ‘surplus officer’. I became extremely upset again and started crying and was told I was being too emotional. I was upset that they had not helped to resolve my situation earlier, the lack of communication and consultation in relation to available options. I felt intimidated in the meetings and did not have any support. I was not being considered for return to my nominal position and nor given an explanation. Instead the Business Manager said there were doubts about my ability to perform in the role due to illness not performance. He would need to reassess my capabilities and skills to effectively perform in role (sic) before considering returning to the role. Even though I asked for specific performance feedback I never received any. I did not receive any management support or coaching, the pressures that I worked under and the culture that existed in the office at that time made things extremely difficult for me. Even though I had asked for 24 hours written notice for formal meetings as the (sic) Centrelink Agreement, this was never considered or acted upon and made me feel ignored, belittled and intimidated. During the next month the Business Manager and Manager delegated full responsibility to me to find another position as they saw me as surplus because they had placed another officer into the position occupied by me while I was ill. The Business Manager had said to me ‘you are an overpaid officer and you need to find yourself a job or there is the door’. When I contacted my old Manager who had retired he said to me ‘give them the fight they are not expecting’.
21.In a meeting held on the 10^th January 2006 the Business Manager stated he had investigated the circumstances that led to my transfer to a different role and there was no documentation or evidence to establish that my move was performance related and that it would not be fair to pursue the matter any further given the lack of documentation and the environment that existed in the office.
22.From the end of 2005 to 2006 I needed to attend 3 monthly medical reviews in Perth for a medical condition. When reminding and notifying my Manager on 5 December 2005 that I would not be in the next day because I had a specialist appointment in Perth the Manager said ‘you are never here’.
23.On 10 January 2006 when notifying my Manager that I had a medical appointment to attend he said ‘you would be a medical miracle’.
24.On 2 February 2006 I showed my Manager a scrapbook on various issues relating to the farming industry so anyone could pick it up and get a quick overview of the industry if I was not in the office because I was visiting customers in remote areas. The Manager said ‘you are never bloody here anyway’.
25.On 9 February 2006 whilst on sick leave I still undertook a radio interview on behalf of Centrelink, this was not acknowledged.
26.I was on sick leave from 7/2/2006 to 15/2/2006 and when I returned my Manager said ‘welcome back from your holiday’. This made me feel guilty for taking sick leave.
27.In 2006 the Manager at the office sent numerous inappropriate e-mails in relation to staff and customers. An example of this is an email dated 10^th February 2006 the Manager refers to a staff member as a ‘disability dragon’ and a customer as a ‘basket case’ and ‘desperate’. This made me feel uncomfortable, dragged me down emotionally. I felt if I raised any concerns about these e-mails I would be belittled and discriminated against.
28.On 19^th June 2006 the Manager asked me to attend performance training, the next day when I spoke to the Deputy Manager I explained my training schedule and was advised that she would keep me in mind for the performance training and that the Manager was covering himself as they couldn’t put me into a Team Leader position if I didn’t have the performance training. I never received this training.
29.On 26^th June 2006 I asked the Manager if I was able to put in a request for holidays, he said to me ‘what, do you want to go on holidays before they do away with your job?’ I asked him if they were doing away with my job and he replied that he ‘didn’t know’.
30.When I requested leave in 2006 I always had to justify my reasons for leave. I was always told I couldn’t have school holiday periods if I had had them previously, regardless of the fact I was the only person doing the job and only needed someone to cover telephone messages in my absence. On 24^th October 2006, in my Rural Services Officer role I had to develop my own training plans to become proficient in new claims. I had also on numerous occasions requested Financial Information Services Training to support me in this role I was continually overlooked and it took over 18 months before I received the training.
31.On 10 April 2007, I was asked to do some work on reducing my flex credit. When I did a country trip, which was approved by my Line Manger I would accrue a day’s flex. I responded stating that I endeavour to be as flexible as possible, however when travelling I could do up to 12 to 16 hour days because of the remoteness. When I was sick or needed an appointment I would use flex time instead of sick leave to reduce my flex hours. This was never acknowledged and I did this on many occasions even before the flex query was raised.
32.When I was a Rural Service Officer I was required to travel long distances, alone and often in remote areas. There were no mechanisms or policy to ensure I was safe or returned, mobile coverage hardly ever worked. I was never given a Satellite phone. I felt socially isolated that my Line Manager didn’t take the time to ensure I was safe and only made comments that implied I was never at work because I wasn’t sitting at a desk in the office. My outreach activities were never questioned only snide comments made towards me when I returned.
33.On the 3 July 2007 I was advised I would be going into an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) position on a trial basis for a few months to make sure I was suited to the position and then nominally transferred into the position at my current level.
34.On 6 August 2007 I had to prepare my own training calendar with no support from management for the Authorised Review Officer position (ARO) I was going into. The standard training for ARO positions was normally one week however I received only two days. After six months of being in the ARO position I was provided with the formal training.
35.Between 2007 and 2008 all access to ‘post’ work related discussions in a National Team Room was removed for all ARO staff, this isolated me more as I was unable to share with others or get support from others through this communication method.
36.In May 2008 I was advised that it was clear I had the necessary attributes, skills and knowledge for the ARO role. On 18 June 2008 I asked when I would be transferred into an ARO position and didn’t receive a reply until after I sent another e-mail on 3 July 2008. I was told that some other positions needed to be finalised first before my position could be. This should have been a routine transfer at level. On 30 July 2008 my Manager at the time, told me that the previous Manager of the team had told her that my transfer should have already happened however, I had to constantly contact to follow up my transfer. On the 20 August 2008 I was advised that they would keep me in the role on a temporary basis for another 3 months, this made me feel undervalued and promises made to me were broken. My understanding was they had positions vacant to fill. I couldn’t understand based on the recommendation from my mentor that I was suited to the role and my previous Manager’s recommendations why I wasn’t transferred to the ARO position. Again I felt isolated, undervalued and discriminated against. I wrote a formal review in accordance with APS regulations 5.24 on the 15 September 2008 to the National Manager. As a result of this review request I received a phone call from my Team Leader to advise me I was being transferred into an ARO position but the Manager in Area WA wanted to speak to me before the transfer took place. My Team Leader didn’t give me a reason why the Manager wanted to talk to me. I told my Team Leader that no telephone conversation was to take place without CSPU involvement as I wanted their support. The next working day I received a conference call from my Team Leader and the Manager who wanted to talk to me about why I had lodged a review with the National Manager and not copied her into the review request. Again I found this to be intimidating and not respectful of me as an individual and my rights to request a review. As a result when I attended a team meeting in Perth I asked my mentor to make sure I was not left alone as I was afraid I would be cornered and bullied by the Manager regarding my request for a review.
37.Five months after I commenced as an ARO I was hounded by Legal Services to change my decision on a case even though there was no policy or legal documentation to back up why they wanted the decision changed. I had to write pages to justify my decision, I did suggest if there was policy to change my decision I would do this however the staff member from Legal Services said there wasn’t any and that it was political in the sense he just wanted it changed so Key Performance Indictor (KPI) results would be achieved. During this time I did not get any support from my Line Manager.
38.In 2009 I called in sick, as I was unable to get an appointment with a Dr, I wrote a Stat Declaration to that effect. This was in accordance with our conditions of employment. This was ignored by my Team Leader. My leave did not change to sick leave with evidence. My document was never acknowledged as being received which made me feel like I was being ignored.
39.I felt totally ignored by a CSC Manager and Original Decision Maker when a decision I set aside took six months of constant contact to have them implement the decision. They are required to implement the decision within 7 days. During this time I received no help with getting the decision implemented from my Manager until I had a relief Manager.
40.In November 2009 whilst I was opening the mail at the office (which I had done on and off for the past few years) a staff member spoke to me about why I was doing the mail. The tone of their voice and what they said to be (sic) caused me such distress that I burst into tears. When I spoke to the Deputy Manager about the incident the staff member walked into the office and I said to her that she needed to be careful how she said things to people because she had really upset me with her tone and attitude towards me. She responded vehemently that she thought I was her friend but that I was nothing but a trouble maker. The Deputy Manager did absolutely nothing to deal with the matter so this only served to increase my distress and I left work for the day. During the next few days I made sure that I was not at my desk by myself when the staff member passed by through fear of being yelled at again. A few days later when there was no senior management at the office the staff member came to my desk to apologise and again said that she thought I was her friend but I was nothing but a trouble maker and that I should not have spoken to the Deputy Manager. I asked her to keep the conversation professional and in line with the APS Code of Conduct and she blew me and the APS code of conduct off. I started to shake and cry again. I again left work and contacted the CSC Manager and requested to move desks.
41.In January 2010 I started to put forward ideas to assist ARO’s with managing the new reduced paper initiatives programme because increased (sic) our work load exponentially. We would have to do more printing. I sent e-mails to my Manager at the time, a few months later I also forwarded e-mail’s to the Legal Services Branch. It wasn’t until July with a change of my Team Leader that the idea was progressed. For six months, I was totally ignored, and my Team Leader stated to me ‘that she needed to buy me a punching bag so I can take my frustrations out on it.’ My Team Leader is located in another part of the country so I am isolated geographically as well as personally. We work under the ‘virtual team’ concept which is more about cost saving using technology than it is about a supportive team environment/culture. We are all isolated in our team and linked only by technology. This in itself is fraught with problems only (sic) served to increase my feelings of isolation, exclusion and solitude.
42.In February 2010 the process to allocate work to the ARO’s was changed, this meant instead of being allocated work on a weekly basis it is now allocated on a daily basis and is more than what was expected as reasonable caseloads to have on hand, it also increased my house keeping duties significantly. My desk was swamped with files to the point that my desk was completely full with files and stacked high. This makes me anxious, stressed and unmotivated. I feel I have no control over my workload. When I asked front of line control about how many cases they were allocating they said they were unable to reduce the number of files being allocated to me because the National Manager had directed them to allocate the amount of files everyone had to have on their desks and they had to just keep allocating files even when the target number had been reached.
43.In July 2010 I was directed by a Customer Relation Unit (CRU) staff member on how to conduct a review on a customer because she had been in contact with the customer a number of times and how to do my job even though an ARO review is to be undertaken by an independent senior officer. When I spoke to the customer he was aggressive and abusive and I had to terminate the call. The customer called CRU again to complain about me and the CRU staff member didn’t adhere to protocols which were to raise concerns with my Team Leader, instead, forwarded his complaint straight to the National Manager. This is a customer that called repeatedly to complain about anything and everything. This made me feel as if I was being treated differently to other staff.
44.In July 2010 with my first face to face meeting with my current Team Leader she asked me to tell her about myself. Immediately when I started to talk about work history I started to cry and then she started to cry. She told me she was a sympathetic crier but offered no support or referral to get assistance, instead she moved onto business.
45.During my annual performance review in July 2010 I provided my comments and evidence file. My Manager took a copy of my comments but didn’t bother to read my supporting evidence stating there was a ‘consistency process’ in place this year and implied that everyone was going to get a rating of ‘3’ fully effective. I felt deflated and totally worthless, undervalued and felt like a chicken on the battery farm. Aside from the fact that the ‘consistency process’ was the subject of a dispute of Fair Work Australia because it was illegal demonstrated to me how policy and legislation is consistently ignored by Centrelink management.
46.In August 2010 I was conducting a review on a customer’s record where all contact was through the CSC Manager because of the customer’s abusive nature. I asked both my Team Leader and Legal Services whether I was required to contact the customer when they had a history of abuse. I aired my concerns and their advice was I was obliged to contact the customer. I did as directed and the customer abused and yelled at me and hung up. I felt as if I was standing in front of a firing squad knowing too well I was going to be abused. A the end of the call I contacted the CSC Manger who was meant to be dealing with the customer as per her record and advised them of what happened. My Team Leader offered no support, enquired how the conversation went or how I was feeling. This incident caused me a lot of stress.
47.In the period August 2007 to June 2010 I invited two different Manager’s, from Perth, I had down to Bunbury, both declined.
48.Week commencing 9 August 2010 I invited my Manager down to Bunbury when she was over in WA on the week commencing the 16 August 2010. She told me she didn’t have time on that trip. This made me feel more isolated. Often the Managers have a large team across multiple sites so meeting face to face with the team is difficult, however, in my three years in the position of ARO only a relief Manager has been to visit due to the event at point 40 of this document.
49.On 12 August 2010 my Manager advised me the ideas I submitted for the reduced paper initiative would not be supported and that we would have to ‘just move on’. My Manager also said at this time that my performance rating had come back from the consistency panel and that I was going to the rating of ‘fully effective’ which is a good rating. I immediately went quiet and she said I know you are disappointed as you were expecting a very good rating. She then went on to say I do a very good job and am excellent at what I do but the rating would not change and I could appeal the decision. With all the events as listed that had lead up to this day I broke down and felt I could not deal with anything further that day. I put my message bank on my phone and ceased communication for the day. I cried for about 8 hours and could not face anything.
50.On 13 August 2010 I went to the doctor and got a Medical Certificate for two weeks, stating I was unfit. When I told my Manager about my medical certificate she said that she would now find time to come and see me on her scheduled trip to WA whilst I was off sick, I hesitantly declined. It was obvious to me now that my sick leave affected the “Attendance Strategy” I was suddenly important to her but previously when invited she was too busy. When I e-mailed the Medical Certificate to my Manager I received a response thanking me for sending it and she proceeded to tell me about our current progress on our finalised case loads. Her interest in my wellbeing was cursory at best and more than ably demonstrated by how quickly she moved onto work load discussion.
51.I feel anxious, totally stressed, beaten down, isolated, undervalued, unsupported and emotionally drained. I cry for hours on end anytime I think of or have to deal with any work issues. I am afraid of the environment I have to work in and do not feel safe.
52.On 26 August 2010 I got another Medical Certificate and rang my Manager. I was crying over the phone very upset and told her that it was a result of the past ten years of work related events and having to have to fight for my rights all the time with Centrelink. I advised her that I had been to EAP counselling and that I had a Clinical Psychologist appointment. Immediately she suggested a graduated return to work program of one day a week without even taking the time to actually find out what had happened and what specific work related events were causing me stress and anxiety.
53.On the 30 August 2010 I received a text message from my Manager asking me to call her. The text message upset me and I cried myself to sleep that night. I called my Manager on the 1 September 2010 and she told me she was having an ARO meeting on 15 September 2010 and during that week she would like to come down to Bunbury and see me. I declined saying that I needed to be left alone during my period of illness so I could get treatment. She asked me if she could get the HR person in Area WA to call me about ‘Fitness For Duty’ because they had a duty of care towards me and she was worried about me. I told her I needed to be left alone to get things sorted out with my head and to get counselling. Within half an hour of this phone call the HR person in Area WA rang. I cried uncontrollably for about 8 hours. Her persistence under the guise of ‘duty of care’ was puzzling as she has not demonstrated this previously.
54.On 3 September 2010 HR rang me again. I then asked the CPSU to write to Centrelink asking to be left alone whilst I underwent treatment (e-mail attachment).
55.On 9 September 2010 I had to sign for a person to person letter and had to provide identification to the postman. I opened the letter, as it was work related I broke down immediately and my family had to come over to be with me. I needed to attend the emergency department of the local hospital because of my emotional wellbeing at an all-time low and could not be left alone. This was preventable. I asked them to leave me alone and let me recover and rebuild my strength, the CPSU asked them to leave me alone for fear of my health and another staff member asked them to leave me alone. They ignored all of us and here I am.” (T17, pp 67-78)

The applicant tendered in evidence her signed witness statement, dated 18 April 2012 (Exhibit A1). That statement, which comprises 399 paragraphs, sets out (at greater length than in the abovementioned statement in paragraph 7) the applicant’s account of certain events in her employment in the periods October 1997 – 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Her witness statement refers to events in 2010, leading up to her claim for compensation, as follows:
“ 2010
197.In January 2010 I started to put forward ideas to assist ARO’s with managing the new reduced paper initiative program because it increased our work load exponentially.
198.We would have to do more printing. I sent emails to my manager at the time and a few months later I also forwarded emails to the legal services branch.
199.It was not until July with the change of my team leader that the idea was actually progressed.
200.For 6 months I was totally ignored and my team leader stated to me that she needed to buy me a punching bag so I could take my frustrations out on it.
201.My team leader is located in another part of the country so I am isolated geographically as well as personally.
202.We work under a virtual team concept which is more about costs saving, using technology than it is about a supportive team environment. We are all isolated in our team and linked only by technology. This is itself for all is problems only serves to increase my feelings of isolation, excluding and solitude. (sic)
203.In early 2010 at least one section of Centrelink ceased sending through documents relating to customer appeals.
204.This was a result of ‘The Reducing Paper Initiative’ project. Which purpose (sic) said ‘The act of digitising paper documents allows us to eliminate, as far as practicable, the movement of paper within Centrelink, which ultimately means faster response times, whilst minimising waste.’
205.Digitisation increased my workload as the information contained on summary screens of customers often does not explain that (sic) the digitised document relates to, therefore, a lot of the digitised documents you open have nothing to do with the appeal, have been scanned multiple times, or at times be (sic) on the incorrect customers’ record.
206.On 17 February 2010 a number of ARO’s including me raised concerns about not having the documents provided in relation to reviews being sent to ARO’s as this was increasing our workloads.
207.More and more time was being spent locating the documents for the appeals I was allocated and less time was available to undertake the actual reviews.
208.Essential system availability was unreliable, this included the archival system.
209.On 23 May 2010 the Business Manager, Business Integrity, Payment Review Branch, wrote to the National Manager stating that she was planning to increase the ARO productivity benchmark from 1.2 cases per day to 1.5 cases per day with a projected date of effect of 1 July 2010. Attached in the email was a table outlining the national average ARO reviews completed for the preceding 8 months they were:
a.Sep 2009      1.1 cases per day
b.Oct 2009      1.2 cases per day
c.Nov 2009     1.1 cases per day
d.Dec 2009     1.3 cases per day
e.Jan 2010      1.2 cases per day
f.Feb 2010     1.1 cases per day
g.March 2010 1.2 cases per day
h.April 2010     1.3 cases per day
210.It was only after ARO’s contacted the CPSU (Union), about the planned increases to productivity, including me that ARO’s were asked, on for feedback on the issue of productivity with Centrelink citing that they were considering changing the productivity measures. (sic)
211.ARO’s were provided three days to provide feedback
212.The issues raised at this time were:
a.This equated to a 25% increase in output measures; (sic)
b.It didn’t take into account the extra time that was being taken for us to collate papers, due to the reduced paper initiative, before we could commence an appeal;
c.The fact that Centrelink had reduced the number and types of policy helpdesks available for Customer Service Assessors to access and they were now making more and more enquiries with ARO’s on policy matters. ARO’s were being seen more and more as a policy helpdesk taking away time for actual case work.
d.That FACSIA decided to cease updating their easy to access versions of the Social Security Law and more time was spent accessing the law through the COMLAW website that would either time out when loading or would take valuable time up before the pages you were looking for would load. It also meant to find relevant parts of the law were more time consuming.
e.The counting method was inequitable. ARO’s undertaking Family Tax Benefit appeals could claim multiple appeal stats for one customer where as a person reviewing 9 Trusts and Companies would only be able to claim one appeal stat.
f.Nationally there was a push for ARO’s to review all types of appeals even those benefit types they had never been trained in.
g.Occupational Health and Safety implications for any fully occupied (fulltime) person expected to increase their productivity by. (sic)
h.No consultation with ARO’s.
i.Quality of decision statements will be affected.
j.The AAA agreement between Centrelink and the Social Security Administration (sic) Tribunal (SSAT) was more and more demanding and was utilising more of ARO time preparing papers for the SSAT.
k.It was not taken into account that ARO’s who were located in Customer Service Centre’s (CSC) spent more and more of their time providing advice to Customer Service Advisers on policy matters.
213.In June 2010 ARO’s found out, were not advised, that other teams who had a number of documents which needed to be considered in decision making were being provided with an extra computer monitor for each staff member to assist them to do their work.
214.This was due to the fact that customer documents were being scanned onto their records with the paper copies being destroyed after six weeks.
215.There was no communication if each ARO was going to be provided with an extra computer monitor or not or even when they would be provided to assist us with doing our jobs.
216.One ARO glanced at the list with the order quantities for extra computer monitors and saw that ARO’s were excluded.
217.Staff in the office and other specialist staff were provided with the extra monitors but I was excluded.
218.On 19 July 2010 I again raised concerns about ODMs not following the mandated task cards and providing the relevant documents for appeals and that I was finding that more and more of my time was spent on compiling paperwork or evidence for the cases allocated to me or chasing up with the ODM’s.
219.In July 2010 I received a QA report back which stated that I should not have provide (sic) in my decision statement to the customer information on the an (sic) entire table of the Disability Schedule in the Law relating to his assessment and the Guide to the Impairment Tables which explained the difference to the customer under Social Security Law what (sic) a ‘temporary’ and a ‘permanent’ condition.
220.When I raised my concerns with the QA’s about her comments I did not receive any support from my Team Leader, the only response from my Team Leader was ‘Your thoughts’.
221.As a result of the comments from the QA’s I asked my Team Leader if she wanted me to use the templates provided and only add in the blanks and no other kind of explanation/s to the customer as to how I came to my decision.
222.I received no response from my Team Leader and I had no direction or knew what was expected of me.
223.It was raised in June 2010 that the quality and depth of an ARO decisions (sic) needed to be made clear by other ARO’s.
224.At some stage between August 2010 and July 2011 Centrelink suspended the quality checking of ARO decisions.
225.In early 2008 at a Western Australia ARO state meeting it was agreed by the Team Leader at the time that each ARO would have a maximum limit of cases on hand equal to 2.5 weeks of work.
226.This equated to a maximum of 15 cases/customer files on hand per ARO at any one time.
227.The reason for the maximum number of cases was to ensure there was not a feeling of being overwhelmed and to ensure stress levels were kept at a workable level.
228.From early 2008 up until the weeks in July 2010 and August 2010 the number of cases I had on hand increased to up to 25 at any one time.
229.In July 2010 when I had up to the amount of 25 cases on hand I was also asked every week to provide an update on why I had cases on hand over 28 days old and what I was doing to complete those reviews.
230.In July 2010 Ms Meredith Hough became my team leader. She was based in South Australia.
231.On one occasion I was reliant upon the ODM recalculating an overpayment for the customer and partner and had no control over. (sic)
232.My Team Leader provided no assistance in negotiating with the ODM’s Team Leader to recalculate the overpayment as a matter of priority, I was just required to follow it up continually every week and provide explanation why I had not completed the case.
233.Having 25 cases on hand equated to 4 weeks of work on hand at any time.
234.Without any hiccups’ or competing priorities meant that it was extremely difficult to meet Centrelink’s expectation that I complete 75% of cases within 28 days old. (sic)
235.The pressure of meeting Centrelink’s expectations of completing 75% of cases within 28 days old (sic) was difficult to meet especially when the case may have been allocated when it was already 20 days old, this happened frequently that cases were 14 days or more old before they were allocated.
236.On 26 July 2010 I went my GP and told her I was not coping with the stresses of work and the increased workloads.
237.There are ARO’s in Western Australia that had close to least 50 cases on hand when I last worked, this equates to approximately 8 weeks’ worth of cases on hand.
238.When I commenced case work in 2011 on my return to work it was agreed with my rehab provider and Team Leader of the specific types of cases that I would undertake and the number of cases on hand.
239.This agreement was continually ignored by the National FOLC team who allocate the cases and has contributed in exacerbating my condition.
240.As soon as I would complete one case another case would be allocated that same day or the next and I had a feeling of not achieving anything.
241.I had continually sought assistance from my Team Leader to have cases reallocated due to National FOLC not abiding by my Return to Work Programme. This caused me to always to be reminded of my condition and my weaknesses, I conveyed these feelings to my Team Leader.
242.In July 2010 I had my first face to face meeting with my team leader Ms Hough, she asked me to tell her about myself. Immediately when I started to talk about the work history I started to cry and then she started to cry. She told me that she was a sympathetic crier but offered not (sic) support or referral for assistance but instead she moved into business.
243.During my annual performance review in July 2010 I provided my comments and evidence file. My manager took a copy of my comments but did not bother to read my supporting evidence stating that there was a consistency progress (sic) in place this year and implied that everyone was going to get the rating of 3 fully effective.
244.Ms Hough did not read the file I gave her about my performance.
245.Ms Hough would read the main frame report which shows cases finalised. All she was looking at was a report prepared by somebody else.
246.I felt deflated and totally worthless, undervalued and felt like a chicken on a battery farm. Aside from the fact that the consistency process was subject of a dispute of Fair Work Australia because it was illegal, demonstrated to me how policy and legislation was consistently ignored by Centrelink Management.
247.In August 2010 I was conducting a review on a current a review on a current (sic) customer’s record where all contact through (sic) the CSC manager because of the customers abusive nature.
248.I asked both my team leader and legal services whether I was required to contact the customer when they had a history of abuse. I had my concerns and their advice was that I was obliged to contact the customer.
249.I did as directed and the customer abused and yelled at me and hung up. I felt as if I was standing in front of a firing squad knowing too well I was going to be abused. At the end of the call I contacted the CSC manager who was meant to be dealing with the customer as per her record and advised them of what happened.
250.My team leader offered no support and enquired how the conversation went or how I was feeling. The incident caused me a lot of stress.
251.On 9 August 2010 I invited my manager down to Bunbury when she was over in WA on the week commencing 16 August 2010.
252.She told me that she did not have time on that trip which made me feel isolated.
253.Often managers have large teams across multiple sites so face to face meetings with a team are difficult. However, in the 3 years in the position of ARO only a relief manager had visited due to a particular issue regarding a decision.
254.On or about 12 August 2010 my manager advised me the ideas I submitted for the reduced paper initiative will not be supported and that we will just move on.
255.My manager also said at the time that my performance rating had come back from the constancy (sic) panel and that I was going to get the rating of fully effective. Which is a good rating.
256.I immediately went quite (sic), she said she knows I was disappointed as I was expecting a very good rating. She then went on to say that I do a very good job and are (sic) excellent at what I do, but that the rating would not change and I could appeal the decision.
257.With all events listed that had lead up to this day I broke down. I felt like I could not deal with anything further that day.
258.In August/September 2011 I lodged an injury report with Centrelink due to the National FOLC not allocating cases as per the agreement between myself and my Team Leader, A… V...
259.First date absent on sick leave 13 August 2010 with a medical certificate; (sic)
260.On 13 August 2010 Ms Hough Acknowledges we spoke by telephone. I went to the doctor that day and I got another medical certificate for 2 weeks stating that I was unfit for work.
261.When I told my manger about my certificate she said that she would now find time to come and see me on her scheduled trip to WA whilst I was off sick, which I declined.
262.It was obvious to me that my sick leave effected (sic) the attendance strategy, I was suddenly important to her, but previously when invited she was too busy.
263.When I emailed the medical certificate to my manager, I receive (sic) a response thanking me for sending it, she proceeded to tell me about our current progress on our finalised case close (sic). Her interest in my wellbeing was cursory at best and more the (sic) ably demonstrated on how quickly she moved onto the work load discussion.
264.I felt anxious, stressed, beaten down, isolated, unsupported and emotionally drained. I cried for hours on end, at any time I had to think or deal with any work issues. I’m afraid of the environment I had to work in and don’t feel safe.
265.On 20 August 2010 contact initiated by Ms Hough.
266.On 26 August 2010 Ms Hough acknowledges that we spoke by telephone. I got another medical certificate and I rang my manager. I was crying over the phone and upset and told her it was as a result of the past 10 years of work related events and having to fight for my rights all the time with Centrelink. I advised her that I had been to EAP counselling and that I had a clinical psychologist appointment.
267.Immediately she suggested that I consider a graduate a (sic) return to work program 1 day a week without even taking the time to actually what (sic) happened and what specific work related events were causing me stress anxiety.
268.Email dated 26 August 2010 by Ms Hough to HR and two other people states that I was considering a compensation claim.
269.On 30 August 2010 Ms Hough acknowledges attempting to contact me. I received a text message from my manager asked for me to call her. It upset me and I cried myself to sleep at night.
270.I called my manager on 1 September 2010 and she told me that she was having an ARO meeting on 15 September 2010 and during that week she would like me to come to Bunbury to see me.
271.I declined and said that I needed to be left alone during my period of illness so I could get treatment.
272.She asked if I can get a HR person in area WA to call me about fitness for duty because they had a duty of care towards me and she was worried. I told her that I needed to be left alone to get things sorted in my head and get counselling.
273.Within half an hour of this phone call the HR person in area WA rang.
274.I cried for almost 8 hours. Her persistence under the guise of duty of care was puzzling as she had not demonstrated this previously.
275.On 31 August 2010 Ms Hough acknowledged in an email that she contacted me.
276.On 1 September 2010 email sent by Ms Hough to HR which states that she was contacted by the ARO in Albany, J… C… advising that contacts from Centrelink are triggering anxiety attacks.
277.On 3 September 2010 Centrelink was notified by CPSU (Union) that I was feeling harassed from the many phone calls from Centrelink.
278.On 5 September 2010 Ms Hough acknowledges contacting me and sending me a couple of text messages (SMS messages).
279.On 6 September 2010 Centrelink acknowledged attempting to call me a couple of times.
280.Email dated 7 September 2010 from Ms Hough to HR which states ‘Please refer to attached Team Leader Report for Lisa Silk, I hope it provides enough information – I feel like I am struggling to provide context as I have only been Lisa’s Manager for a short time. You will notice that I have highlighted three dot points on the first page, I am unsure what to include here.   Please update as you see fit. The possible outcomes of this assessment that have been explained to Lisa Silk are
a.Return to work to the same or modified duties;
b.Retirement on the ground of invalidity; and
c.Absence on personal leave.
281.On 9 September 2010 I had to sign for a person to person letter and had to provide identification to the postman. I opened the letter and as it was work related, I broke down immediately and my family had to come over to be with me.
282.I needed to attend the emergency department of the local hospital because of being emotionally at an alltime low and I could not be left along (sic).
283.Ms Hough wrote the email dated 7 September 2010 approximately two months after she commenced as my Team Leader.
284.Ms Hough was finding it difficult to write a Team Leader report for a referral for Fitness for Duty two months after she finalised my Performance Assessment? (sic)
285.I am not sure how Ms Hough could accurately assess my performance after only being my Team Leader for 12 days when after being my Team Leader for two months she found it difficult to complete a Team Leader Report for a Fitness for Duty.
286.On 10 September 2010 from (sic) a colleague (J… C…) emailed Ms Hough explaining a conversation between myself and Ms C… and which also suggested that I claim workers compensation.
287.Email dated 10 September 2010 from Ms Hough to HR and three other people forwarding Ms C…’s email and advising that Ms Hough would speak with Ms C… on 14 September 2010 advising her that it was inappropriate to suggest that I claim Compensation, as a result of Ms C…’s email as a repercussion she could be investigated for a code of conduct for inappropriate behaviour and Ms C… should not be speaking with me direct.” (sic) (original emphasis)

In her examination-in-chief the applicant gave evidence to the following effect:
·although in her compensation claim form she indicated that she had first noticed the relevant illness on 12 August 2010, she had in fact first seen Dr Humphries about “stress at work” on 26 July 2010;
·during her employment with Centrelink she has been subjected to customer aggression on numerous occasions and she has recorded each such occasion, the last occasion being in July/August 2010;
·when she returned from sick leave in January 2005 she was placed in the call centre but they were not expecting her and she was left to work in an area where there was no-one else around and she felt isolated;
·in February 2005 she started “shadowing” certain positions including the position of Authorised Review Officer (“ARO”) and she was subsequently transferred to the position of ARO on a temporary basis in August 2007;
·she received 1.5 days’ training “sitting with an ARO in Albany”;
·she felt “quite unsure” about this new role because of the legal complexity involved and she “struggled initially”;
·about six months later she received training in three legal “modules” developed by Centrelink but this training “did not really give [her] anything extra” in assisting her to perform the role;
·in November 2009, when she was opening the mail at the office, a customer service officer queried her doing that and she felt that she was being attacked;
·in May 2010 her section received an email (probably sent to them “in error”) about a proposed increase in the performance target for AROs – a target which she felt would be an impossible target for her to achieve consistently;
·Meredith Hough became her team leader on 1 July 2010;
·immediately prior to Ms Hough, she had another team leader for eight weeks and, prior to that, another team leader for “a couple of months”, and there was “no consistency or direction” because of these changes in team leader;
·she received an email from Ms Hough informing her about a “getting to know” and performance assessment meeting, and requesting her to bring evidence of her performance to the meeting;
·the meeting was held at the Joondalup office of Centrelink on 12 or 13 July 2010;
·she brought a file of evidence regarding her performance to the meeting and Ms Hough took only the first two pages relating to her ARO performance statistics and her statement about her performance and achievements;
·as regards her performance assessment, Ms Hough told her that, in the performance assessment process, there was a “consistency panel” and that performance ratings would be in accordance with a “bell curve” and that a small number would get a “below average” rating, a large number would get a “good” rating, and a small number would get a “very good” rating;
·Ms Hough did not tell her what her performance rating was – she told her that she would be informed later after it had “been to the consistency panel”;
·the meeting with Ms Hough lasted about one hour;
·she went to see Dr Humphries on 26 July 2010 specifically about her workload and the stress it was causing her;
·Dr Humphries told her to do what she was able to do and to tell her superiors if she could not manage her workload;
·she found out about her performance assessment on 12 August 2010 when she telephoned Ms Hough after receiving an ”electronic flash message” from Ms Hough to call her;
·Ms Hough told her that her ideas about the “reduced paper initiative” would not be implemented and that they would “need to get [her] a punching bag”;
·Ms Hough then told her that her performance rating was “a good”;
·she “went silent” when Ms Hough told her about the “reduced paper initiative” and then started to cry;
·she did not care about her performance rating because it was a good rating and the salary difference involved was only about $700 pa;
·Ms Hough told her that there was an appeals process but she “did not bother” to appeal.
In cross-examination the applicant gave evidence to the following effect:
·the date “12/08/2010” stated in her compensation claim form as the date on which she first noticed the relevant illness and saw Dr Humphries was the date on which she went off work because of her inability to cope;
·she in fact saw Dr Humphries on 13 August 2010, but had seen her previously on 26 July 2010;
·she agrees with Ms Hough’s statement that their meeting on 13 July 2010 went for 1 ¾ hours;
·at that meeting she handed to Ms Hough a lever arch file containing evidence of her performance;
·Ms Hough did not have regard to the contents of that file;
·Ms Hough seemed to be more interested in what had been happening in her family life rather than in her Centrelink performance;
·she felt that she should have been rated as “4 - very good” in her annual performance assessment and review but instead she was rated as “3 - fully effective”;
·although she has not referred to the “bell curve” distribution of ratings in any of her previous statements, that is how Ms Hough explained it to her;
·when Ms Hough told her, in their telephone conversation on 12 August 2010, that her performance assessment rating was “3 - fully effective”, she (the applicant) was “not too fussed about it”;
·she disagrees with Ms Hough’s statement that she was upset about her rating and that they then had a lengthy discussion about it;
·she has been seeing Dr Humphries for about 21 years;
·Dr Humphries is the only general practitioner she has seen in that period;
·she had consulted Dr Humphries about work stress in November 2004;
·Dr Humphries prescribed Zoloft for her and she took Zoloft until September 2010;
·from September 2010 she was taking Lexapro until her treating psychiatrist, Dr Mander, prescribed a different medication in 2011.
The applicant was referred to Dr Humphries’ clinical notes for her consultations on 26 July 2010, 9 August 2010 and 13 August 2010, and she did not dispute the accuracy of those notes. She acknowledged that Dr Humphries’ clinical notes for the period between 13 December 2007 and 26 July 2010 do not refer to work stress.
The Evidence of the Medical Witnesses
Dr Irene Humphries
Dr Humphries, a general practitioner, said that her computer records of the applicant’s consultations with her commence on 7 July 2003. She confirmed that she had prepared two reports, one dated 22 November 2010, the other dated 20 June 2012, regarding the applicant in connection with her compensation claim, the subject of this proceeding.
Dr Humphries’ report of 22 November 2010, which is addressed to the respondent, states as follows:
“ Mrs Silk has been a patient at this practice since 2003.
On 26/07/10 Lisa presented and said that she was teary, crying at work. She stated that she had some stresses at work. Her Zoloft was increased to 100mg per day and she was advised to go for counselling
On 13/08/10 she again complained of stresses at work and was not coping. She stated that she was crying all the time. She was certified unfit for work until 28/08/10 and referred to Barbara Lamparski for therapy.
She was reviewed on 26/08/10. She had been seeing a counsellor at Centrecare and had an appointment to see Barbara Lamparski. She was teary when she talked about work, said she didn’t feel able to go back as yet and felt harassed. She was certified unfit till 30/09/10.
On 09/09/10 she attended the Emergency Department and was tearful and depressed. They changed her from Zoloft to Escitalopram 10mg.
I last saw her on 01/10/10. She seen (sic) Dr Tay (Psychiatrist) and was told to increase her Lexapro to 20mg. She was still teary and depressed.
Mrs Silk was referred for therapy by counsellors and by Barbara Lamparski who is an OT who deals in therapy for depression. I felt this therapy was likely to be more beneficial. It is difficult to acquire psychiatric review in Bunbury. I did not feel she needed to travel to Perth to see a psychiatrist at that time as her medication was being adjusted.
Mrs Silk is suffering from an exacerbation of her depression caused by stresses at work. She was diagnosed on her clinical presentation. She had previously been on Zoloft 50mg but had not presented with symptoms of depression since 13/12/07.
Mrs Silk’s condition was exacerbated by stresses at work. She denied any stresses at home or elsewhere. She felt she was harassed, unappreciated and treated unfairly. I have no specific details but she has reported incidents to her employer and felt these were disregarded.
Her condition has not resolved since I first saw her on 26/07/10. She has required an increase in medication since that time.
There is no indication of other factors outside her employment aggravating her condition.
Mrs Silk’s diagnosis is major depression.” (T29)
Dr Humphries’ report of 20 June 2012, which is addressed to the applicant’s solicitors, states as follows:
“ Lisa Silk was first prescribed Zoloft in November 2004 when she complained of feeling teary and not sleeping well. She stated that she had stresses at work but there was no specific cause.
Zoloft is Sertraline which is an antidepressant which is also useful in anxiety and panic disorders. I continued to prescribe her Zoloft 50mg until she presented on 26/07/2010 with an exacerbation of depression and I increased her dose to 100 mg per day.
Her medication was changed by doctors at Bunbury Regional Hospital to Lexapro.
In January 2011 I referred her to Dr Mander who changed her medication to Pristiq in April 2011. He has since prescribed Carbamazepine, Lithium and Imipramine.
Dr Mander has general management of Lisa’s psychiatric condition and is the doctor managing her medication.” (Exhibit A5)
In her oral evidence Dr Humphries said that the applicant first consulted her regarding stresses at work on 16 November 2004 and that she subsequently consulted her about work stress on 31 December 2004, 27 January 2005, 6 May 2006, 13 December 2007, 26 July 2010, 13 August 2010 and 26 August 2010. She said that she continued to prescribe the anti-depressant, Zoloft, for the applicant throughout the whole of that period because she felt that the applicant was depressed and that that medication seemed to be of benefit to her.
Dr Humphries said that, up until 26 July 2010, the applicant’s depression had been well controlled on a daily Zoloft dosage of 50 mg but that, on that date, she presented with a history of “stresses at work” and “bursting into tears” and she increased the applicant’s Zoloft dosage to 100 mg per day. Dr Humphries said that she did not recall the specific details of the applicant’s reported work stresses other than that her “system at work was changing” and she felt that she was being unfairly treated. Dr Humphries said that when she saw the applicant on 13 August 2010 she was still complaining of work stresses and crying and she referred her to Barbara Lamparski, a psychologist.
Ms Barbara Lamparski
Ms Lamparski, Clinical Psychologist, said that she was the applicant’s “treating psychological therapist” from 23 September 2010 to 5 May 2011. She confirmed that she had prepared two reports regarding the applicant, one dated 4 November 2010 addressed to Dr Humphries, the other dated 26 November 2010 addressed to the respondent.
Ms Lamparski’s report of 4 November 2010 states as follows:
“ Thank you for referring this woman for psychological management of her work related stresses. I have now seen Lisa on three occasions, when her history has been obtained and therapy has been commenced.
Lisa is a single mother of two children. She has been an employee of Centrelink for approximately 13 years and described a longstanding history of being bullied. There have been a number of unrelated incidents that have had a detrimental and cumulative effect upon Lisa’s mental state, with the result that she is now suffering from anxiety and depression. There is no evidence of non-work factors affecting Lisa’s presentation and her personal history is unremarkable. I did note however, that Lisa has difficulty in coping with change and has a tendency to ‘personalise’ events. Not surprisingly, this has exacerbated her workplace problems.
As you are aware, Lisa is currently on sick leave and is intending to put in a workers compensation claim. While being away from work has eased her symptoms to some extent, Lisa’s anxiety rapidly escalates when she is reminded of the work situation (eg discussing her problems in this area, letters or phone calls from Centrelink). For this reason she has become avoidant and relies on her sister to act as an intermediary in this matter. Lisa’s depressed mood is secondary to her anxiety and is related to her feelings of helplessness about the situation that she finds herself in. She has been on anti-depressant medication since 2004 and was recently seen by South West Mental Health Service staff at BRH subsequent to an emotional decompensation triggered by a letter regarding a psychiatric appointment.
Therapy has commenced with an initial focus on mood management and coping strategies, but is also targeting the underlying negative cognitions that are a significant factor in Lisa’s presentation. While it is difficult to estimate with accuracy at this early stage, given the longstanding nature of her emotional disorders I would expect that Lisa will require psychological input for at least the medium term. I will keep you informed of her progress from time to time, but if there is any aspect of Lisa’s care that you would like to discuss in the interim, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.” (T18)
Ms Lamparski’s report of 26 November 2010 states as follows:
“ … My responses to Comcare’s queries are provided below:
1With regard to the patient’s claimed condition. Please provide the patient’s history as reported by Ms Silk during each consultation, including the date of which she first consulted you for her claimed condition.
Ms Silk first consulted me on 23/09/10. She has been seen on four occasions to date, when her history has been obtained and psychological therapy has been provided. Ms Silk reported that she has been an employee of Centrelink since 13/10/97 and is an Authorised Review Officer. She related her history of work problems both verbally and in writing.
Ms Silk reported that she did not have any problems in dealing with Centrelink customers. Rather, a series of apparently unrelated incidents occurred where the behaviour of other Centrelink staff had led to her feel (sic) bullied, belittled and socially isolated at work. Her level of distress was such that Ms Silk was unable to provide a detailed account during her initial sessions so I asked that she produce a written account (attached)
…
3In your opinion, what is the specific diagnosis of the condition from which Ms Silk suffers? Please provide a description of the diagnostic criteria used that assisted you in reaching the diagnosis.
Ms Silk’s presentation is consistent with a diagnosis of Major Depression, as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). She also suffers from associated anxiety, which is triggered by work related matters.
4Details of any relevant history, pre-existing or underlying condition suffered by Ms Silk.
Ms Silk’s history, as reported by her, is unremarkable and does not indicate that she has suffered from any pre-existing or underlying psychological condition.
5In your opinion, is Ms Silk’s current medical condition an aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a pre-existing or underlying condition? Please provide specific details and a clinical explanation to support your opinion.
From the information available, there is no indication of the above.
6In your opinion, what do you consider to be the employment factors that caused or aggravated Ms Silk’s claimed condition? Please be specific as to what these factors are and whether there have been any further incidents that have aggravated/accelerated her condition. (Please be specific, where possible, as to when particular incidents occurred.)
A number of incidents at work have contributed to Ms Silk’s current presentation. These are outlined in the attached documentation. A work environment where Ms Silk felt unsupported and at times bullied by management, where she was not provided with training opportunities, felt that she did not have the opportunity to resolve differences with other staff and was ostracised, led to increasing feelings of anxiety, helplessness and eventually depression. There have been no further incidents since Ms Silk has been on sick leave.
7Are there any factors outside the scope of the employment that have caused or aggravated Ms Silk’s condition? If so, please list the employment and non-employment factors separately and individually specify the level of contribution for each factor.
While Ms Silk’s condition is primarily related to work related stress, she has also suffered from a number of medical conditions over the relevant period. Her ill health has diminished Ms Silk’s capacity to cope with her work problems and as such, has aggravated her emotional reactions to the pressure that she has felt under. Due to the nature of Ms Silk’s condition however, it is not possible to determine the individual contribution of work versus health factors to her presentation with a greater level of specificity.” (T35, pp 269-271)
[The Tribunal notes that the “attached documentation” referred to in response to question 6 in the abovementioned report comprises the statement prepared by the applicant set out in paragraph 7 above (T17, pp 67–79; T35, pp 272-284).]
In her oral evidence Ms Lamparski confirmed that she stood by the opinion expressed in response to question 6 in her report of 26 November 2010.
Dr Frederick Ng
Dr Ng, Psychiatrist, confirmed that he had, at the request of the applicant’s solicitors, prepared two reports regarding the applicant, one dated 7 November 2011, the other dated 19 June 2012, and that he adhered to the contents of those reports.
Dr Ng’s report of 7 November 2011 addressed to the applicant’s solicitors, which was prepared following his assessment of the applicant on that date, sets out the applicant’s background social and medical history and then refers to her relevant employment history and related medical treatment as follows:
“ ….
She told me over many years ago, in the context of her employment with Centrelink, she had felt belittled and undervalued from a particular customer service advisor. Her typewritten information also indicated that she was subject to numerous episodes of customer aggression and verbal abuse.
She also said that being trained in the area of parenting payments, she was also given a difficult time because she was seen to be inexperienced in that area.
There were also other examples provided in her typewritten summary (and verbally verified by her) of her difficulties at work to the extent that she said she became increasingly stressed, anxious and depressed requiring the commencement of the antidepressant, Zoloft, 50mg daily in 2004.
She also said she became easily tearful and developed sleep difficulties.
She said her moods also became quite variable.
She said she then improved and became somewhat more stable in her moods between 2004 and 2007 and remained taking the Zoloft 50mg daily.
She alleged that there was a lack of training when she was transferred to the role of an authorised review officer. She said the lack of training caused her significant stress and anxiety as decision making in the role of an authorised review officer required her to have some legal knowledge, she had to make important decisions and also reconsider decisions made by others.
She then said that she had to ‘fight’ with her employer to be made permanent in that position. This also caused her further stress.
She said further stress, as highlighted in her typewritten summary of difficulties headed ‘Timeline of Events 2007 to 2010’, indicated that at times she was told to ignore policy or the law and various other issues which arose in the context of her work as stated in the body of her documents which she agreed. (sic)
The other issue, she said, was significant increases in workload which she said occurred from the time she started working in the ARO role in August 2007.
She said in the context of the above, her sleep deteriorated, she became easily tearful, felt more depressed and anxious and developed suicidal ideation and just wanted to ‘run away’.
She then said a new team leader came on 1 July 2010. She said at a meeting regarding her performance she was given a rating of ‘achieving’ but your client felt that your client was achieving higher than that level.
She told me that in the context of the reported work issues, the basis of this claim, she had attended 3 to 4 sessions of counselling as part of the employee assistance program. This may have occurred in 2010. She said she then saw a clinical psychologist by the name of Barbara on about 8 occasions and ceased that contact in May 2011.
She said she then saw the consultant psychiatrist, Dr Tony Mander, commencing in April 2011 and her treatment by Dr Mander was currently ongoing.
With respect to medication treatment:
She told me that in about November 2004 she was commenced by her general practitioner with the antidepressant, Zoloft, 50mg daily and took that relatively small dose from 2004 until 2010 when the dosage in approximately July 2010 was increased from 50 to 100mg daily.
Subsequently the antidepressant was reportedly changed from Zoloft to Escitalopram (Lexapro).
She said she then saw an independent psychiatrist, Dr Tay, for the insurer and the recommendation was that the Lexapro dose be increased.
She said in April 2011 she began seeing Dr Mander, her current treating psychiatrist, who changed the antidepressant to Pristiq and the dosage was then increased until she attained 200mg daily. She said Lithium Carbonate was then added initially at 450mg daily increasing to 1350mg daily.
She said in recent months the Pristiq was ceased. She said she was then commenced on Imipramine, an older style antidepressant, in conjunction with the Lithium Carbonate which was continued.
She told me in recent times she had ceased all the use of her medications because she had ‘given up’.
She told me when she gave up taking her medications she did have transient suicidal ideation but no exact plans and she did not make an attempt to harm herself.
She said that she would be discussing her psychiatric treatment with her treating psychiatrist who she was to see in about 1 week.”
Dr Ng’s report then addresses questions put to him by the applicant’s solicitors as follows:
“ ….
4What is your diagnosis?
Based on the history elicited, the mental status examination, having perused copies of the correspondences provided and from my clinical experience, I am satisfied that your client currently suffers from a partially treated major depressive episode (DSM IV TR) moderately severe with coexisting high levels of anxiety.
…
7Based on the history provided by my client, was the employment a contributing factor to my client’s injury and contributed to a significant degree. (sic)
The answer is yes.
I believe she already had pre-existing psychiatric difficulties which were controlled to some extent by Zoloft at the small dose of 50mg daily stemming from difficulties back in 2004 and prior to that.
She was reportedly (from the psychiatric perspective) relatively stable for a period of some years but then from about 2007 her condition reportedly progressively deteriorated leading to a significant exacerbation of pre-existing anxiety and depressive symptoms to the extent that she currently now suffers from a major depressive episode of some significance with associated anxiety.
8Are you of the view that my client can return to her usual occupation for the foreseeable or at all? (sic)
Currently this woman is totally unfit for any form of work due to the extent of her current psychiatric condition.
9Are you of the view that my client’s injury was contributed to by the performance review conducted by her employer.
I believe that any issues to do with the performance review may have contributed to a small extent to her difficulties and that the other multiple difficulties she has reported (and as stated in her typewritten summaries to me) of difficulties at work, were the significant contributing factors to the significant exacerbation of her psychiatric condition over the last 3 years especially in 2010.
…” (Exhibit A3)

Dr Ng’s report of 19 June 2012, addressed to the applicant’s solicitors, states as follows:
“ I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 5 June 2012 and the enclosed copies of voluminous documentation as follows:
1Medical report of Dr L Terace dated 9 Jan 2012
In page 9 ‘…attended her General Practitioner in late July 2010 and her existing antidepressant Zoloft (sertraline) was then increased from 50mg to 100mg per day…’
‘… from the medical documentation of her General Practitioner provided in the File Documents it is also clear that she had not presented with symptoms of depression since December 2007.’
‘Thus, the proximal cause of her deterioration in July 2010 appeared to be a meeting about her performance assessment in July of 2010.’
2Medical documentation from Dr T Mander.
In the letter dated 20 Apr 2011 ‘…in order to assist her classic symptoms of a major depressive illness.’
3Copies of documentation from D I Humphries (GP) (many pages).
4Copies of documentation from B Lamparski (Psychologist) (many pages).
I will now respond to your question (sic) as follows:
1Do any of the enclosed documents have any impact on any part of the opinion you provided in your report of 7 November 2011. If so, please specify how your opinion has changed and why?
The answer is no.
2Whether my client had ceased to suffer the effects of her psychiatric condition prior to July 2010.
Based on what your client had told me at the assessment interview, and based on the fact that she continued to take an antidepressant Zoloft (Sertraline) for some years leading up to 2010, and based on her written summary of the ongoing difficulties over a period of some years leading up to the meeting in July 2010, I do not believe that she was completely free of the effects of her psychiatric condition, prior to July 2010.
I draw your attention to page 7 of my report dated 7 November 2011 where I had summarised what she had told me was happening at work in the intervening period between 2007 and 2010 and her emotional reaction to that.
3I note in your report of 7 November 2011 you state at page 13 where you say ‘I believe that any issues to do with the performance review may have contributed to a small extent to her difficulties and that the other multiple difficulties she has reported (and as stated in her typewritten summaries to me) of difficulties at work, were the significant contributing factors to the significant exacerbation of her psychiatric condition over the last 3 years especially in 2010’. Can you please advise whether in light of the above documents, your opinion had changed in that regard. If so, please specify how your opinion has changed and why.
My opinion has not changed.
I believe that your client’s emotional state was already fragile and vulnerable, prior to the said meeting of July 2010 and that her pre-existing emotional state, made her more vulnerable to what was said at the meeting and how she interpreted what was stated at the said meeting.
…”(original emphasis) (Exhibit A4)
In his examination-in-chief Dr Ng reiterated his opinion that the applicant’s employment with Centrelink had contributed to her present major depressive condition. He said that, although her condition had been “quiescent” in the period 2004-2007, from 2007 she became “increasingly more emotionally compromised” due to the “cumulative effect of work stressors”. He said that the applicant’s major depressive condition had developed over a period of 1–3 years but that he was unable to “define a precise time” when that condition “arose”.
As regards the opinion expressed in the last paragraph of each of his abovementioned reports, Dr Ng explained that, because the applicant was “already emotionally compromised for the past 2–3 years leading up to” her performance review meeting [with Ms Hough] in July 2010, that meeting, although “inherently stressful” for her, itself only contributed to her condition “to a small extent”.
In cross-examination Dr Ng acknowledged that there was no reference in Dr Humphries’ clinical notes to the applicant’s complaining of work stresses in the period between 13 December 2007 and 26 July 2010.
In response to questions from the Tribunal, Dr Ng opined that the abovementioned meeting of July 2010 exacerbated the applicant’s pre-existing emotionally fragile condition.
Dr Eileen Tay
Dr Tay, Psychiatrist, said that she had seen the applicant on two occasions at the request of Centrelink for a fitness for duty assessment, namely, on 30 September 2010 and in November 2011, and that she had prepared a report, dated 14 October 2010, following the former assessment. She confirmed that she adhered to the contents of that report.
Dr Tay’s report of 14 October 2010 relevantly states as follows:
“ …
Background:
Ms Silk stated that she has been working with Centrelink for about 13 years. She denied that this episode was due to performance issues as was raised in the accompanying letter. She found it difficult to articulate what it was that she has been struggling with at Centrelink, citing one particular episode in November 2004 when once again she was crying and sleeping a lot and needed about nine weeks off work. She stated that it was work related and the response by Centrelink was to move her from her office to the call centre without informing the call centre and found herself in an empty call centre office. It was not until January 2005 that a different position was sought for her, but Ms Silk stated that she did not cope well intermittently during that time either. At that time, she was also commenced on antidepressant medication by her general practitioner in the form of Zoloft at a low dose of 50mg.
She stated she has been in her current role as an authorised review officer since August 2007 and had been managing until August this year. Ms Silk finally stated that she has been dealing with numerous issues for the last 13 years from staff, managers, aggressive behaviour from staff and/or customers and it has led her to feel undervalued and unrecognised for her work.
She stated that since about January this year, she has been involved with national policy changes that have been causing her some concern, that she has been trying to deal with without effect. Also since January this year, she has had three different managers. The issues involved her giving feedback to the legal services nationally, but in turn she alleges she has had no feedback from them until the new manager, Meredith Hough arrived in July 2010. When she first arrived, Ms Silk stated they had an informal meeting to get to know each other and that during this meeting she also started to cry. She forwarded some of her concerns to the new manager who also forwarded them to the legal services and an answer was then received by this new manager. Ms Silk was informed of the response with a preamble that Ms Silk would not like the answer, which she agreed with. Ms Silk stated that the answer made her feel that she was not valued as a person.
Ms Silk cited another example of a conflictual situation with legal services regarding a customer claim which she contested, stating that what they asked her to do was not legal, even though the request came from legal services.
Other examples cited by Ms Silk included dealing with a particularly difficult customer which unfortunately resulted in the customer relations line manager bypassing her to the national manager and to this end, Ms Silk also felt undermined and unsupported.
There have been other changes to the workplace including that of reducing the paper load at work with scanning files into the computer, but her role also involves preparing files for social security departments. These files need to be in paper, but due to the fact that all information is now scanned, there is additional work in terms of having to go through the scanned documents to find the appropriate and relevant documents and printing them out. The way in which work is allocated has also changed and overall Ms Silk has felt an increasing sense of loss of control over workload and work issues.
Finally, Ms Silk also alleged that no team leader wanted to speak with her in person, other than recently when she eventually lodged a workers compensation claim. There is some contradiction regarding what she alleged as the chain of events as to (sic) what is contained in the letter from the team leader, Meredith Hough.
Symptomatic Inquiry:
Ms Silk stated that she kept breaking down in tears and then started to avoid having anything to do with the workplace and, therefore, call screening at home as well. She also started to not want to be at home in order to avoid contact with the workplace, yet at the same time was upset that no team leader had come to Bunbury to see her. (sic)
She stated that she has had a very disturbed sleep pattern, with initial insomnia, waking up regularly and falling asleep on the lounge. She said she was issued some Diazepam by the emergency department to use at night, but she has not tried any of these as she was afraid of becoming addicted to them.
Ms Silk described the onset of depression cognitions in the form of believing herself as a loser as she is unable to explain why she is breaking down and crying all the time, describing herself as a strong person who used to be able to stick up for herself and fight for herself. She reports feeling hopeless and helpless. She also stated that she felt she could not tell her parents regarding what was happening with her work situation until recently, although her sister and her partner are fully aware.
She did state she has caught up with some ex-colleagues from work for morning tea and that recently she has adopted a calf to look after in her backyard which helps her take her mind off things.
Past Psychiatric History:
In 2004, she was diagnosed with depression and was commenced on Zoloft 50mg at the time. She denied any family psychiatric history.
Past Medical History:
Hypertension, for which she has been commenced on treatment, and type 2 diabetes for which she is on oral hypoglycaemic medication.
Current Treatment:
Lexapro 10mg mane and this will be reviewed by her general practitioner tomorrow. Her general practitioner had also increased the Zoloft from 50 to 100mg before her presentation to the accident and emergency department about a week ago.
Premorbid Personality:
Apart from Ms Silk describing herself as normally a strong person who could cope with things, she also admitted to avoidance issues, in particular her increasing inability to deal with conflict and instead seeking avoidance of them. A sense of loss of control in the workplace with changing workplace practices has also been an issue for her.
MENTAL STATE EXAMINATION:
Ms Silk presented as an overweight woman with long dark brown hair, who was casually groomed and, as stated, she attended the assessment in the company of her sister and partner. She was cooperative with the assessment and was tearful throughout most of it, but did resume a calmer demeanour when talking about the calf she has looked after. She demonstrated little insight into how she was reacting and why, to the situations at work and found it difficult to summarise what had been occurring in the lead-up to her stopping work. She has also been concerned about her performance appraisals, keeping an evidence file and stating that this evidence file is not used to assess her performance, which has made her feel more anxious regarding the process of assessment. This is in spite of the fact that the team leader’s report has cited there were no performance issues. Clearly, Ms Silk has formed a strongly negatively biased view regarding her own performance at work.
She was teary and low in mood with an anxious affect that was manifest as an over inclusive and somewhat tangential historian with an inability to summarise issues.
She denied any active suicidal plan other than it being due to an avoidance of issues and in particular triggered by this assessment due to the anxiety it provoked in her. There was no evidence of mania or psychosis on today’s assessment.
Diagnosis:
Axis 1:Major Depressive Episode with prominent anxiety symptoms and obsessional features manifested as her inability to let go of things. This has not been adequately treated to date
…” (T15)
In cross-examination Dr Tay said that, although the applicant told her that her present psychiatric condition was not due to issues about her work performance, she also told her that she thought that her performance assessment was “unfair”. She opined that the applicant was stressed about her performance assessment in the sense that it was unfair and unjustifiable and led her to have a negative view of her own work performance.
Dr Tay acknowledged that all of the background employment factors referred to in her report were contributing factors to the applicant’s stress. She said that her understanding was that the applicant’s performance assessment, in the context of all the issues that she had been struggling to cope with at work, was “the last straw” and that, although a “small” matter in itself, “in her mind it was a big thing – a slap in the face”.
In re-examination Dr Tay agreed that both the applicant’s workload and her performance assessment were important and significant contributing factors to her psychiatric condition.
In response to a question from the Tribunal, Dr Tay opined that in July/August 2010 the applicant suffered an aggravation or exacerbation of a pre-existing depressive condition, rather than the contraction of a new major depressive condition.
Dr Lawrence Terace
Dr Terace, Consultant Psychiatrist, confirmed that he had prepared a report, dated 9 January 2012, regarding the applicant. That report, which was prepared following an assessment of the applicant on 6 December 2011 and is addressed to the respondent’s solicitors, states as follows:
“ …
Introduction
Ms Silk presented as a 42-year-old divorced lady who is presently in a relationship but who resides in a different residence from her partner. She lives in Bunbury. Ms Silk presented with her partner and her union representative, Ms Lisa Hutchings, from the Commonwealth Public Sector Union (CPSU).
Ms Silk is not working presently. Ms Silk last worked on 19 September 2011 at Bunbury Centrelink in the Customer Service Centre where she has held full-time employment since 2001 full-time (sic).
Ms Silk stated that she began her employment with Centrelink in 1997 but she took leave in relation to a workers’ compensation claim in August of 2010.
She then returned to work as of 24 January 2011 via a graduated return to work program until she was employed full-time ending June/July 2011.
Background history provided by Ms Silk culminating in the Worker’s Compensation Claim
Ms Silk consulted her General Practitioner reportedly on 26 July 2010. At that time, her General Practitioner increased her existing antidepressant of Zoloft (sertraline) from 50 to 100mg and she continued to work.
As of 13 August 2010 she saw the same General Practitioner and was referred to Clinical Psychologist Barbara Lamparski.
Ms Silk claimed that she was unsupported, isolated, excluded, helpless and demoralised. At this point in the interview Ms Silk stated that in 2005/2006 she was required to take medical leave … but she claimed that she was ridiculed by her Office Manager who stated that she was a medical miracle.
Ms Silk then stated that between 2004 and 2007 her main task was to visit farmers on their properties and she claimed there were no mechanisms in place to ensure she could get home safely including mobile phone coverage. Ms Silk stated that her employer has policy and procedures in place about this but claims that they were ignored.
In 2007 a decision was made to move her from her former role with farmers into the position of Authorised Review Officer. She claimed that she was advised that if she was shown to be suitable in the role after a few months then the position would become permanent. However, it took 13 months and her lodgement of a formal dispute under the Australian Public Service (APS) regulations before the transfer was made permanent. Before it was made permanent the Compliance Manager for Western Australia and her Team Leader were reportedly adamant that they wished to have a conversation with her because they were aggrieved that she had lodged a dispute. When she advised them that it was her wish to have the Union present she (sic) did not pursue the matter further
Furthermore, in 2007 she was only provided with one day’s training.
At this point in the interview she claimed that since 2001 she had not received any coaching from any of her Team Leaders.
From 2007 to the present she and one other colleague were reportedly refused travel allowance to attend some meetings and training in Perth.
In 2008 Ms Silk decided that a customer did not have a debt of $20,000 but the Legal Division maintained the position that they did, and reportedly advised her to ignore policy and the law over a 2-week period until she declined to change her position.
In 2009 Ms Silk took brief sick-leave and was unable to see her General Practitioner so she wrote a Statutory Declaration as per the workplace agreement but she claims that it was ignored as evidence.
In 2009 Ms Silk changed the decision for a customer and it took 6 months of asking the Centrelink Office Manager and her Team Leader for assistance before it was implemented.
In November of 2009 Ms Silk was opening mail in the local office and a staff member raised her voice at her. When Ms Silk spoke to the deputy management (sic) about the matter the staff member referred to her as a troublemaker. A few days later, the staff member raised the issue again and Ms Silk asked the Manager to move her desk.
In January of 2010 Ms Silk forwarded ideas to management about a reduced paper initiative and forwarded the same e-mails to the Legal Services branch and it was not until 6 months later that there was any acknowledgement.
In February of 2010 there was a change to the allocation of work which meant a greater caseload for her which almost doubled.
In July of 2010 Ms Silk was contacted by the Customer Relations Unit because a customer had complained. The customer was telephoned by her and he was aggressive and she terminated the call. She stated that she did not feel supported by her Team Leader.
On 14 June 2010 Ms Silk had had a telephone discussion with her new Team Leader and he had written that there were no performance issues.
As of 1 July 2010 Ms Silk was provided a new Team Leader.
As of 13 July 2010 a meeting was held between them about her performance assessment. Ms Silk then consulted her General Practitioner and her antidepressant Zoloft (sertraline) was increased to 100mg per day.
In August of 2010 Ms Silk encountered another abusive customer who was directed to contact the customer (sic) and she perceived that she was unsupported by her Team Leader.
Ms Silk began leave in August 2010. The leave was continued until January of 2011 when she began a graduated return to work program increasing her hours to full-time in June/July of 2011.
Ms Silk remained under the care of Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Anthony Mander since April of 2011. She then began the antidepressant Pristiq (desvenlafaxine) 100mg increasing to 200mg per day. Dr Mander subsequently added lithium carbonate without benefit. In September of 2011 Dr Mander stopped Pristiq and commenced imipramine.
Subsequently, Centrelink referred Ms Silk for a Fitness for Duty Assessment at which time she became increasingly distressed and stopped her medications. (Ms Silk was declared unfit by Dr Mander for at least until 9 February 2012).
…
Past Psychiatric History
In 2004 Ms Silk made a Workers Compensation Claim for 5-6 weeks from November of 2004 to early January 2005. She claimed that she was then not supported by the Manager and Area Manager and was undermined.
Ms Silk did not see a Psychologist or Psychiatrist at that time. However, her General Practitioner commenced the antidepressant Zoloft (sertraline) 50mg per day which was continued until September of 2011 when her antidepressant was changed to Lexapro (escitalopram) 10mg per day and then increased to 20mg by Dr Mander, Consultant Psychiatrist in April of 2011 and subsequently changed to Pristiq (desvenlafaxine).
…
Questions
I now turn to the questions posed in your referral letter.
1 The history given to you by Ms Silk.
The history provided Ms Silk is as described in the aforementioned body of this report.
Furthermore, I note the written description of events provided by Ms Silk in the file documentation provided by yourself to me which is divided into events between 1998 and 2004 and events leading up to a second injury from 2004 to 2010.
From the history and documentation it is clear that Ms Silk had a number of grievances in relation to Centrelink.
However, Ms Silk attended her General Practitioner in late July of 2010 and her existing antidepressant Zoloft (sertraline) was then increased from 50 to 100mg per day and she assumed leave in August of 2010.
Furthermore, from the medical documentation of her General Practitioner provided in the File Documents it is also clear that she had not presented with symptoms of depression since December of 2007.
Thus, the proximal cause of her deterioration in July of 2010 appeared to be a meeting about her performance assessment in July of 2010.
…
4Your opinion as to the nature of any psychiatric condition likely suffered by Ms Silk prior to July 2010, and whether Ms Silk had ceased to suffer from the effects of that psychiatric condition prior to July 2010. If applicable and if possible, please indicate the likely date that the effects ceased.
According to the history provided by Ms Silk and confirmed in her General Practitioner’s notes as provided in the File Documentation Ms Silk became acutely distressed in July of 2010 and then suffered the contraction of a recognisable psychiatric condition. While she described a history of previous psychiatric disturbance in 2004 this was in remission by 2007 prior to July of 2010, and thus she did not suffer an exacerbation or aggravation of a psychiatric condition but rather the contraction of a new condition.
5Your opinion as to factors or events that significantly contributed to any psychiatric condition likely suffered by Ms Silk prior to July 2010.
The proximal cause to her deterioration in July of 2010 appeared to be a meeting about her performance assessment in July of 2010.
While she described a history of previous psychiatric disturbance in 2004 this was in remission by 2007 prior to July of 2010 but appeared to be associated with a number of grievances with Centrelink at the time. She claimed that she was then not supported by the Manager and Area Manager and was undermined.
6Your opinion as to the nature of any psychiatric condition likely suffered by Ms Silk in July 2010, including whether Ms Silk suffered an exacerbation or aggravation of any psychiatric condition.
Ms Silk became acutely distressed in July of 2010 and then suffered the new contraction of the recognisable psychiatric condition of Major Depression.
7Your opinion to (sic) factors or events that significantly contributed to the psychiatric condition, or the exacerbation or aggravation of any psychiatric condition (if applicable), referred to in paragraph 4.6 above, including whether discussion of Ms Silk’s performance assessment at the meeting on 13 July 2010 was a factor that significantly contributed to the psychiatric condition, or the exacerbation or aggravation of a psychiatric condition.
Ms Silk described a long history of grievances with Centrelink.
However, the history supports the view that in July of 2010 there was a discussion of Ms Silk’s performance assessment that approximated her visit to her General Practitioner and the increase in her antidepressant Zoloft from 50 to 100mg. Thus, the discussion of Ms Silk’s performance assessment at a meeting in July of 2010 appeared to be the proximal and causal factor that significantly contributed to the contraction of her new psychiatric condition at that time.
8Your diagnosis of any recognisable psychiatric condition that Ms Silk currently has, including (if applicable) whether Ms Silk continues to suffer from an exacerbation or aggravation of a recognisable psychiatric condition.
Since July of 2010 Ms Silk sustained the diagnosis of a recognisable psychiatric condition which I would have called Major Depression and this represented the contraction of a new condition.
However, the condition has improved and Ms Silk now describes residual symptoms which principally consist of her distress related to Centrelink matters, sleep disturbance and social avoidance.
9If Ms Silk does not currently have a recognisable psychiatric condition, when it is (sic) likely that Ms Silk ceased to suffer from that condition.
While Ms Silk’s condition has improved her condition has not yet ceased in entirety. Her Major Depression remains in partial remission.
10If applicable, your opinion as to the events or factors that are likely continuing to significantly contribute to Ms Silk’s current psychiatric condition.
Please see my response to your Question 7.
Ms Silk’s current psychiatric condition has been continuous since July of 2010 and began after a discussion about her performance assessment in July of 2010.
…” (Exhibit R6)

In cross-examination Dr Terace reiterated his opinion that, in July 2010, the applicant contracted a new psychiatric condition of major depression in the sense of a “recurrence” of a previous depressive condition which had resolved. He acknowledged that the applicant had continued to take the anti-depressant, Zoloft, throughout the period from 2007 up until 26 July 2010 (when the dosage was increased from 50 mg to 100 mg per day) but he said that standard psychiatric practice is to recommend the continuation of anti-depressant medication for a minimum of two years after the last depressive symptom. He agreed, however, that the applicant may have continued to take Zoloft throughout that period because of ongoing work stresses.
Dr Terace said that, on the history provided to him, the applicant continued to have workload problems in the period from 2008 to July 2010 which were upsetting her but that her response to those problems in that period was within the bounds of normal mental functioning. He said that the applicant has particular personality and constitutional characteristics which lead to her becoming acutely distressed and that those inherent characteristics probably represent the predominant cause of her major depression. He added that, having regard to the applicant’s employment history, the only events which, in his opinion, caused the applicant acute distress were her performance appraisal meeting with Ms Hough on 13 July 2010 and her subsequent discussion with Ms Hough on 12 August 2010 (as described in paras 45 and 49 of her statement set out in paragraph 7 above) and, accordingly, he regarded those events as the “most prominent and proximal factors” in the applicant’s contracting major depression.
Dr Terace said that the applicant is a “psychologically vulnerable individual” and the question arises as to which event or events “provoked that vulnerability into a psychiatric condition”. He said that, on the information before him, the abovementioned events of July/August 2010 were, on the balance of probabilities, the events that were most distressing to her and were the critical factors in provoking her psychological vulnerability.
The Evidence of Meredith Hough
In her examination-in-chief Ms Hough gave the following evidence:
·she has been employed by Centrelink for just over 9½ years;
·on 28 June 2010 she became the applicant’s Team Leader;
·prior to that appointment she was the office manager in Centrelink’s office in Noarlunga, South Australia and in that capacity she managed an office staff of up to 25 members and provided pastoral care to up to a further 25 Centrelink staff;
·from 28 June 2010 she was the “Cluster Manager” of 43 authorised review officers (including the applicant) located in Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory;
·in the period July/August 2010 she would have had a face-to-face meeting with each authorised review officer (“ARO”) at least once and, in some cases, twice;
·in that period she had one face-to-face meeting with the applicant on 13 July 2010;
·the first face-to-face meeting with an ARO included a “transition exercise” which was a “get to know session” in which she asked about the ARO’s background and what they thought about how the ARO network was working and whether they had any suggestions for improvement, and what the ARO’s expectations of her were;
·in her meeting with the applicant on 13 July 2010 she commenced with the transition exercise, during which the applicant became upset;
·she then moved on to the “performance assessment discussion”;
·she provided the applicant with a copy of her draft comments;
·the applicant had brought a lever arch file to the meeting but she (Ms Hough) did not look at it “because it was not offered to [her]”;
·the applicant did provide her with some written comments addressing the four “business outcomes” of the performance assessment, together with other reference material including customer compliments and staff compliments;
·she either made or was given a copy of the applicant’s written comments and she made a note of the various compliments in her performance assessment.
·in the course of the performance assessment discussion she explained to the applicant that she wanted to ensure that she was being consistent and fair and equitable across the whole ARO network in conducting performance assessments and that, once the assessments had gone through the “Consistency Panel” process, she would be able to finalise her decision;
·she cannot recall using the term “bell curve” in the course of that discussion but she would have explained to the applicant that the consistency process would produce that kind of distribution of results, with the majority of AROs receiving a “fully effective” rating;
·she had a telephone conversation with the applicant on 12 August 2010;
·in that conversation she told the applicant that her suggestions regarding the “reduced paper initiative” were not going to be implemented;
·about 90% of that conversation was about the applicant’s performance assessment and about 10% related to the “reduced paper initiative”;
·in the period 28 June 2010 to mid-August 2010 she travelled from South Australia (where she is based) to Western Australia on two occasions.
Ms Hough confirmed that she had prepared a statement in November 2010 (T25, pp 119-123) in relation to the applicant’s compensation claim. That statement refers to (inter alia) her meeting with the applicant on 13 July 2010 and her telephone conversation with the applicant on 12 August 2010 as follows:
“ At our first face to face meeting on 13 July 2010 I completed a Transition Exercise. This exercise helped me ‘get to know’ staff, in particular I wished to obtain information about Lisa, her ARO role, the ARO team and the ARO network.
Lisa was open and honest, she explained that she is a single parent with two children; daughter 20 and son 17. In particular we discussed her son’s quest to enter the police force and the tests he was undertaking at the time.
Lisa explained her Centrelink career detailing her position moves and roles in Canberra and more recently in Bunbury. Lisa became upset when she spoke about issues that arose at the Bunbury Customer Service Centre (CSC), Lisa explained an instance where she was moved from the CSC to the Call Centre and then back to the CSC as a Rural Services Officer and the impact of these events. I questioned this further and Lisa indicated that the events occurred a long time ago but still sometimes affects her. I offered Lisa my support if ever she wanted to talk about past events.
Via our Transition Exercise discussion Lisa suggested my priorities as a new Cluster Manager should be; to get to know staff, build relationships and understand the ARO role. Lisa’s expectation of me was to support her.
In addition Lisa and I discussed her annual Performance Assessment for 2009/2010. In total our meeting/discussion went for 1 and ¾ hours.
….
13 July 2010 – Face to Face Transition Exercise Performance Assessment Discussion
...
Performance Assessment discussion:
·We discussed my draft comments which were taken from previous coaching notes, mid cycle review and individual performance results.
·Lisa provided evidence to help support her claims for a ‘very good’ rating, some of this evidence was used to further support draft comments including quoted feedback from the ARO Quality Checker. Lisa used this evidence as her employee comments once I finalised my Manager comments.
·We discussed the overall Performance Assessment process including rating scale and consistency process including that I would finalise Lisa’s Performance Assessment once I have met with all staff to ensure I was being consistent with overall Performance Assessment ratings.
·I thanked Lisa for her time and acknowledged her efforts to meet with me as she was on recreational leave at the time.” (T25, pp 120,121)
“ On 12 August 2010 I spoke to Lisa Silk in relation to her Performance Assessment rating. Lisa was clearly upset about the rating (was expecting a ‘very good’), Lisa was crying on the phone. We had a lengthy discussion about her rating and in essence she feels that she is not being recognised for the extra work that she does. We also discussed Lisa’s appeal rights. After our phone conversation Lisa sent me a sametime (instant message) asking if she could go home early which I agreed to, however I noticed via her attendance record that she worked until her normal finishing time.
I received a text message on 13 August 2010, ‘Hi Meredith it’s Lisa, I will not be in today, not well, have a Doctor’s appointment later this morning, cheers.’ I contacted Lisa and approved this leave, again we spoke about her performance rating and Lisa indicated that she does not handle situations like this very well and needs time to get over it.” (T25, p 119)
In cross-examination Ms Hough gave the following evidence:
·she also prepared a Team Leader Report, dated 7 September 2010, regarding the applicant ( Exhibit R4);
·that report does not refer to her meeting with the applicant on 13 July 2010;
·that report was prepared for the purpose of a Fitness For Duty assessment of the applicant and the meeting of 13 July 2010 was not relevant to that assessment;
·their meeting on 13 July 2010 was their first, and only, face-to-face meeting;
·it is difficult conducting a performance appraisal of a person at the first face-to-face meeting with that person;
·she cannot recall the “reduced paper initiative” being discussed at the meeting of 13 July 2010;
·the “reduced paper initiative” was discussed in their telephone conversation of 12 August 2010;
·at their meeting of 13 July 2010 she did not look at the “evidence file” that the applicant brought with her to that meeting;
·the applicant did not give that file to her;
·there were some documents in that file, namely, productivity statistics and “quality assurance” results, which she (Ms Hough) already had a copy of and which she took into account in the assessment;
·she did read the particular document provided to her by the applicant containing her comments in support of her case for a higher performance assessment rating;
·although she did not often visit Western Australia to meet with AROs located there, she was able to provide adequate support to them by telephone, email and same-time texting.
The Relevant Legislation
Section 14(1) of the SRC Act provides:
“ Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.”
Section 4 of the SRC Act relevantly provides:
“ (1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
…
aggravation includes acceleration or recurrence.
ailment means any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development).
…
disease has the meaning given by section 5B.
…
impairment means the loss, the loss of the use, or the damage or malfunction, of any part of the body or of any bodily system or function or part of such system or function.
injury has the meaning given by section 5A.
…
(9)A reference in this Act to an incapacity for work is a reference to an incapacity suffered by an employee as a result of an injury, being:
(a)an incapacity to engage in any work; or
(b)an incapacity to engage in work at the same level at which he or she was engaged by the Commonwealth or a licensed corporation in that work or any other work immediately before the injury happened.
…”
Sections 5A and 5B of the SRC Act provide:
“5A Definition of injury
(1)In this Act:
injury means:
(a)    a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b)    an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment; or
(c)    an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
but does not include a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) and without limiting that subsection, reasonable administrative action is taken to include the following:
(a)    a reasonable appraisal of the employee’s performance;
(b)    a reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee’s employment;
(c)    a reasonable suspension action in respect of the employee’s employment;
(d)    a reasonable disciplinary action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee’s employment;
(e)    anything reasonable done in connection with an action mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d);
(f)    anything reasonable done in connection with the employee’s failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment.
5B Definition of disease
(1)In this Act:
disease means:
(a)    an ailment suffered by an employee; or
(b)    an aggravation of such an ailment;
that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee.
…
(3)In this Act:
significant degree means a degree that is substantially more than material.”
Section 7(4) of the SRC Act provides:
“ For the purposes of this Act, an employee shall be taken to have sustained an injury, being a disease, or an aggravation of a disease, on the day when:
(a) the employee first sought medical treatment for the disease, or aggravation; or
(b) the disease or aggravation resulted in the death of the employee or first resulted in the incapacity for work, or impairment of the employee;
whichever happens first.”
The Issues
As indicated in paragraph 4 above, the decision under review in this proceeding comprises two determinations.
Neither party has disputed the first determination, namely, that the respondent was liable under s 14 of the SRC Act to pay compensation to the applicant for “major depressive disorder” suffered on 1 November 2004 but that, as at 13 December 2007, the applicant had ceased to suffer incapacity or require medical treatment as a result of that “injury” and, accordingly, was not entitled to compensation for that “injury” from that date.
The applicant has, however, disputed the second determination, namely, that the respondent was not liable under s 14 of the SRC Act to pay compensation to the applicant for “aggravation of major depressive disorder” suffered on 26 July 2010.
As regards the second determination, it is common ground that the applicant suffered a mental ailment in July 2010 which was “contributed to, to a significant degree by,” (within the meaning of s 5B(1) of the SRC Act) her employment with Centrelink, and that that mental ailment is, therefore, a “disease” (as defined in s 5B(1) of the SRC Act).
Accordingly, the issues for the Tribunal’s determination in this proceeding are:
·the appropriate diagnosis or description of the mental ailment (being a “disease”) suffered by the applicant in July 2010;
·the date on which, for the purposes of the SRC Act, the applicant is taken to have suffered that “disease”; and
·whether that “disease” is a compensable “injury”, within the meaning of s 14(1) of the SRC Act.
The determination of the lastmentioned issue will, in turn, depend on whether that “disease” was suffered by the applicant “as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of [her] employment”, within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act.
Analysis
The appropriate diagnosis or description of the mental ailment suffered by the applicant in July 2010
The Tribunal notes that Dr Humphries and Dr Tay unequivocally opined that the applicant had suffered an exacerbation of a pre-existing depressive condition in July 2010. Dr Ng, in his oral evidence, opined that the meeting of 13 July 2010 between the applicant and Ms Hough exacerbated the applicant’s pre-existing emotionally fragile condition. Although Dr Terace opined, in his report of 9 January 2012, that the applicant had, in July 2010, suffered “a contraction of a new psychiatric condition” rather than “an exacerbation or aggravation of a psychiatric condition”, in his oral evidence he described the contraction of that new condition as a “recurrence” of a previous depressive condition which had resolved.
In the Tribunal’s opinion the medical evidence, on balance, supports the proposition that, in July 2010, the applicant suffered an exacerbation or aggravation of a pre-existing depressive condition. As regards Dr Terace’s opinion that the applicant then suffered a “recurrence” of a previous depressive condition, the Tribunal notes that, in s 4(1) of the SRC Act, the word “aggravation” is defined to include “recurrence”. The Tribunal also notes that, by reason of the first determination in the reviewable decision of 25 July 2011 (see paragraphs 4 and 46 above), it has been determined by the respondent that the applicant suffered a compensable mental injury, namely, “major depressive disorder”, on 1 November 2004.
Having regard to the abovementioned considerations, the Tribunal finds that the appropriate description of the mental ailment (being a “disease”) suffered by the applicant in July 2010 is “aggravation of major depressive disorder”. The Tribunal notes that a similar finding was made by the delegate of the respondent in the reviewable decision of 25 July 2011.
The date on which, for the purposes of the SRC Act, the applicant is taken to have suffered “aggravation of major depressive disorder”
It is common ground that the applicant first sought medical treatment for the relevant “disease” namely, “aggravation of major depressive disorder”, on 26 July 2010.
Accordingly, pursuant to s 7(4) of the SRC Act, the applicant, for the purposes of that Act, is taken to have suffered that “disease”, namely, “aggravation of major depressive disorder”, on 26 July 2010. The Tribunal notes that there was no dispute between the parties in relation to this issue.
Was the “disease”, namely, “aggravation of major depressive disorder”, which the applicant is taken to have suffered on 26 July 2010, suffered by her “as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of [her] employment”, within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act?
The parties’ submissions on this issue focused on Ms Hough’s meeting with the applicant on 13 July 2010. The applicant conceded – rightly, in the Tribunal’s opinion – that that meeting, at which (inter alia) the applicant’s performance appraisal and assessment for 2009/2010 was discussed, constituted “administrative action” which was taken “in respect of the [applicant’s] employment”, within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act. The Tribunal so finds.
The applicant submitted, however, that:
·the abovementioned meeting of 13 July 2010 did not constitute “reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner”, within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act; and
·in any event, the “disease” (namely, “aggravation of major depressive disorder”), which the applicant is taken to have suffered on 26 July 2010, was not suffered by her “as a result of” such “administrative action”, within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act.
Did Ms Hough’s meeting with the applicant on 13 July 2010 constitute “reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner”, within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act?

The applicant submitted that the meeting of 13 July 2010 was not reasonable and was not conducted by Ms Hough in a reasonable manner in that:
·Ms Hough was based in South Australia and had never met the applicant face-to-face before that meeting, and a preferable arrangement would have been for the applicant’s previous Team Leader to have been involved in her performance appraisal process;
·the performance appraisal process included a “consistency process” involving a “Consistency Panel” and did not truly represent an appraisal of the actual performance of a particular employee;
·Ms Hough did not peruse and consider the applicant’s supporting evidence file which she had brought with her to that meeting.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s submission for the following reasons.
The word “reasonable” is relevantly defined in Macquarie Dictionary as:
“ 2 agreeable to reason or sound judgment … 3 not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive…”
and in The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as:
“ 2 In accordance with reason; not irrational or absurd … 5 Within the limits of reason; not greatly less or more than might be thought likely or appropriate; moderate …”
The determination of the question whether Ms Hough’s meeting with the applicant on 13 July 2010 was “reasonable” and was conducted by her “in a reasonable manner”, within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act, is a matter of objective judgment; it is not a matter of mere subjective belief or opinion.
Although, as Ms Hough herself implicitly acknowledged in her oral evidence, it was “difficult” for her to conduct a performance appraisal of the applicant at their first face-to-face meeting on 13 July 2010, the Tribunal is nevertheless satisfied that Ms Hough conducted that performance appraisal in a reasonable manner. The Tribunal accepts Ms Hough’s evidence that she performed a “transition exercise” or “get to know session” with the applicant at that meeting before moving on to a discussion of the applicant’s work performance and the performance assessment process. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s abovementioned written statements appear to be consistent with that evidence (see para 44 of the statement set out in paragraph 7 above and para 242 of the statement set out in paragraph 8 above). The Tribunal also accepts Ms Hough’s evidence that the applicant did not offer or give the relevant lever arch file of supporting evidence to her and that she (Ms Hough) had regard to the applicant’s written comments about her performance and those comments were incorporated in her Annual Performance Review report (Exhibit R3) and that she also had regard to reference material (including customer and staff compliments) provided to her by the applicant as well as documentation containing the applicant’s productivity statistics and “quality assurance” results. Even if, as the applicant submitted, it would have been preferable for Ms Hough to have involved the applicant’s previous Team Leader in the performance appraisal process, her failure to do so does not of itself render her conduct of that process and the meeting of 13 July 2010 unreasonable. The Tribunal, in any event, has reservations about that submission, having regard to the applicant’s oral evidence about the changes in her two previous Team Leaders after relatively short periods (namely, eight weeks and “a couple of months”) and the lack of consistency and direction which she claimed had resulted from those changes in Team Leaders.
As regards the relevant Centrelink performance appraisal process itself (including a “consistency process” and the involvement of a “Consistency Panel”), the Tribunal understands it to be common ground that this process was in accordance with the relevant workplace enterprise agreement. Certainly, the applicant did not contend to the contrary. In any event, the adoption of that performance appraisal process by Centrelink constituted, in the Tribunal’s opinion, reasonable “operational” action or the reasonable “implementation of policy” by Centrelink rather than “administrative action taken in respect of the [applicant’s] employment” within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act: see Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve (2012) 199 FCR 463 at 473, 474. Accordingly, the adoption of that performance appraisal process by Centrelink is not within the scope of the exclusionary proviso in s 5A(1) of the SRC Act. Although, on the other hand, the application of that process to a particular employee would constitute “administrative action taken in respect of the employee’s employment”, that application itself, given that the process is reasonable, would constitute “reasonable administrative action”, for the purposes of s 5A(1). Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts that the application of that performance appraisal process to the applicant constituted “reasonable administrative action” in respect of her employment, within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act.
Finally, as regards the applicant’s contention that Ms Hough did not peruse and consider the file of supporting evidence which the applicant had brought with her to the meeting of 13 July 2010, the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Hough perused and considered the applicant’s written comments in support of her case for a performance assessment rating of “4 - very good” together with other reference and statistical material presented to her by the applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that, in those circumstances, it was not necessary for Ms Hough to peruse and consider the whole of the relevant file in order to conduct a reasonable appraisal of the applicant’s work performance. As previously indicated, furthermore, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant did not offer or give that file to Ms Hough. In the Tribunal’s opinion, it was not unreasonable of Ms Hough not to peruse that file. In short, the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Hough did sufficiently consider the supporting material provided to her by the applicant at their meeting of 13 July 2010 for the purpose of her conducting an appropriate performance appraisal of the applicant.
The Tribunal finds, therefore, that Ms Hough’s meeting with the applicant on 13 July 2010 constituted “reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner”, within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act.
Was the “disease”, namely, “aggravation of major depressive disorder” which the applicant is taken to have suffered on 26 July 2010, suffered by her “as a result of” her meeting of 13 July 2010 with Ms Hough (being “reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of [her] employment”), within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act?
In Hart v Comcare (2005) 145 FCR 29 the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held (in respect of the former definition of “injury” in s 4(1) of the SRC Act) that if the relevant “disease” was suffered “as a result of” any action or circumstance specified in the definition, that “disease” was not an “injury” (as defined), notwithstanding that there were other, non-specified employment-related “operative causes” of that “disease”. In Reeve (above) Rares and Tracey JJ, referring to Hart, said (at 481-482):
“ Branson, Conti and Allsop JJ concluded that in the previous definition of ‘injury’ in s 4(1), the expression ‘as a result of’ applied to any operative cause, whether or not there were other operative causes that had nothing to do with the disciplinary action. Accordingly, they held that the exclusion applied so long as the injury was suffered ‘as a result of’ disciplinary action, even if there were other causes also operating: Hart at [18]-[26].”
Later (at 484) their Honours, referring to the present definition of “injury” in s 5A(1) of the SRC Act, said:
“ The assessment of whether a disease, injury or aggravation has been suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action within the meaning of s 5A(1), involves the formation of a judgment as to causation. This requires a tribunal of fact to ascertain whether the disease, injury or aggravation is the, or a, commonsense, consequence of what is identified as reasonable administrative action by the employer in respect of the employee’s employment.”
More recently, in Drenth v Comcare [2012] FCAFC 86 the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia quoted the abovementioned passage from Reeve (at 484) and added (at [29]):
“ The significance of identifying whether ‘reasonable administration action’ was ‘a cause’ of the compensation complainant’s condition follows from the decision of the Full Court in Hart v Comcare (2005) 145 FCR 29. The Court held that if any factor that had been excluded as (sic) a cause of an injury or aggravation for which compensation was payable under the SRC Act, then even though there may have been one or several other operative causes at work, no compensation was payable at all. Thus, if any ‘reasonable administrative action’ were found to be an operative cause of the aggravation of Ms Drenth’s pre-existing condition, she was not entitled to compensation as explained in Reeve 199 FCR at 481-482 [54]-[56].”
In the present case the Tribunal notes, and accepts, Ms Lamparski’s opinion, expressed in response to question 6 in her report of 26 November 2010 (T35 – see paragraph 19 above), that “a number of incidents at work have contributed to Ms Silk’s current presentation”, as set out in the applicant’s statement in paragraph 7 above. More specifically, the Tribunal finds that the events described under the heading “Chain of events leading up to second injury from 2004 to 2010”, in paras 16-45 of that statement, were operative causes of the “disease” namely, “aggravation of major depressive disorder”, which she is taken to have suffered on 26 July 2010.
Included in those events – indeed, the latest of those events – is the meeting between Ms

Hough and the applicant on 13 July 2010 relating (inter alia) to the applicant’s annual performance appraisal and assessment. The Tribunal has found that that meeting constituted “reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of [the applicant’s] employment”, within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act (see paragraphs 55 and 63 above).
The applicant submitted, however, that the “disease” which she suffered on 26 July 2010 was not suffered by her “as a result of” (within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act) the meeting between her and Ms Hough on 13 July 2010 because that meeting was not a “significant contributing factor” to that “disease”. In support of that submission the applicant relied on the opinion of Dr Ng that, as she was already “emotionally compromised” at the time of that meeting by reason of workplace stresses over the previous 2-3 years, that meeting made only a small contribution to her psychiatric condition. The applicant also relied on her own evidence that she did not care, or was “not too fussed”, about her performance rating because it was a “good” rating and the increase in salary resulting from a “very good” rating, as opposed to a “good” rating, was only about $700 pa.
The Tribunal does not accept that submission. Section 5A (1) of the SRC Act does not, in terms, require that a “disease” be “significantly contributed to” by “reasonable administrative action taken … in respect of the employee’s employment” in order for it to be caught by the exclusionary proviso to the definition of “injury” in that subsection. The relevant test of causation, as stated in s 5A(1), appears in the phrase “as a result of”. That test, in terms, requires, as explained in Hart, Reeve and Drenth (above), an operative causal relationship between the relevant “reasonable administrative action…” and the relevant “disease”. In Reeve Gray J said (at 473):
“ … it is difficult to find in the words ‘suffered as a result of’ some limitation as to the proximity of the relationship between the condition and the action. Whether the necessary causal relationship exists will be a question of fact in each case, but the words chosen by the legislature to describe the causal relationship do not lend themselves readily to confinement to a direct result, or a result with any particular degree of proximity. …”
Nor does the phrase “as a result of” in s 5A(1) – unlike the definition of “disease” in s 5B(1) – expressly impose an “evaluative threshold below which a causal connection may be disregarded” (Comcare v Canute (2005) 148 FCR 232 at 249–250): see Re Wiegand and Comcare [2010] AATA 790 at paras 70, 72 and Re Dunstan and Comcare [2012] AATA 567 at paras 280–281. In the Tribunal’s opinion, to impose a test of causation which requires a “significant contribution” or a “contribution to a significant degree” by the relevant “reasonable administrative action…” to the relevant “disease”, for the purposes of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act, would be impermissibly to put a gloss upon the statutory phrase “as a result of” which significantly alters the test of causation which is expressed in that phrase.
In the present case, however, the Tribunal is satisfied, and finds, that the meeting of 13 July 2010 between Ms Hough and the applicant did make a significant contribution to the applicant’s suffering the “disease” of “aggravation of major depressive disorder” on 26 July 2010. The Tribunal agrees with Dr Terace that the meeting of 13 July 2010 caused the applicant to be “acutely distressed” and “appeared to be the proximal … causal factor that significantly contributed to” her suffering that “disease”. Like Dr Terace, the Tribunal regards para 45 of the applicant’s statement which she lodged with her compensation claim form (T17, pp 67-68 – set out in paragraph 7 above) as indicative of her state of acute distress as a result of that meeting.
As regards Dr Ng’s opinion that the relevant meeting of 13 July 2010 contributed to the applicant’s psychiatric condition to a small extent, the Tribunal understands that, in expressing that opinion, Dr Ng regarded that meeting as merely the latest event in a chain of “multiple” employment-related events over the previous three years which had cumulatively contributed to the exacerbation of the applicant’s psychiatric condition in July 2010, and, in that sense, the contribution made by that meeting itself, relative to the aggregate contribution of preceding multiple events over the previous three years, was small. In the Tribunal’s opinion, however, it is not necessarily inconsistent with Dr Ng’s analysis to regard the meeting of 13 July 2010 – being the last event in that chain of multiple employment-related events before the applicant suffered the “disease” of “aggravation of major depressive disorder” on 26 July 2010 – as having made a significant contribution to that “disease”.
The Tribunal shares Dr Tay’s understanding (see paragraph 31 above) that, although the applicant denied that her present psychiatric condition was related to her performance appraisal and assessment in July/August 2010, that performance appraisal and assessment (which she regarded as unfair and unjustifiable), in the context of all of the employment issues that she had been struggling to cope with, was “the last straw” and that, although a “small” matter in itself in that overall context, “in her mind it was a big thing – a slap in the face”. The Tribunal also agrees with Dr Tay’s opinion (see paragraph 32 above) that both the applicant’s workload and her performance assessment were important and significant contributing factors to her psychiatric condition.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the abovementioned meeting between Ms Hough and the applicant on 13 July 2010 was a significant cause of the applicant’s suffering the “disease” of “aggravation of major depressive disorder” on 26 July 2010 and that, accordingly, that “disease” was suffered by the applicant “as a result of” (within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act) that meeting.
The Tribunal finds, therefore, that the “disease”, namely, “aggravation of major depressive disorder”, which the applicant is taken to have suffered on 26 July 2010, was suffered by her “as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of [her] employment”, within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act.
Conclusion
The Tribunal concludes as follows:
·the applicant suffered an “injury”, namely major depressive disorder on 1 November 2004, for the purposes of s 14(1) of the SRC Act, but that, from 13 December 2007 to date, she has not been entitled to compensation for medical treatment pursuant to s 16 of the SRC Act or for incapacity for work pursuant to s 19 of the SRC Act, in respect of that “injury”;
·the applicant suffered a “disease” (as defined in s 5B(1) of the SRC Act), namely, “aggravation of major depressive disorder”, on 26 July 2010 but that “disease” is not an “injury” (as defined in s 5A(1) of the SRC Act), within the meaning, and for the purposes, of s 14(1) of the SRC Act, and, accordingly, the respondent is not liable under s14(1) of the SRC Act to pay compensation to the applicant in respect of that “disease”.
Decision
For the above reasons, the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 75 (seventy-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President S D Hotop and Dr J Chaney, Member.

...........[sgd D Brodie................................................
Administrative Assistant
Dated 24 September 2012

Dates of hearing

2-5 July 2012

Representative of the Applicant

Mr R McCabe

Solicitors for the Applicant

Slater & Gordon

Representative of the Respondent

Mr B Dube

Solicitors for the Respondent

Sparke Helmore

Division	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number	2011/3414
Re	Lisa Silk
APPLICANT
And	Comcare
RESPONDENT

Tribunal	Deputy President S D Hotop Dr J Chaney, Member
Date	24 September 2012
Place	Perth

Dates of hearing	2-5 July 2012
Representative of the Applicant	Mr R McCabe
Solicitors for the Applicant	Slater & Gordon
Representative of the Respondent	Mr B Dube
Solicitors for the Respondent	Sparke Helmore