Napper and Comcare (Compensation)

[2019] AATA 150

Napper and Comcare (Compensation) [2019] AATA 150 (14 February 2019)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2016/5827

Re:Wayne Napper

APPLICANT

AndComcare

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Deputy President Ian Hanger AM QC

Date:14 February 2019

Place:Canberra

The decision under review should be set aside and a decision substituted that the aggravation of the Applicant’s schizoaffective disorder prior to 3 March 2016 was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment.

........................................................................

Deputy President Ian Hanger AM QC

Catchwords

COMPENSATION – whether the Applicant suffers from an ailment – whether the ailment was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the Applicant’s employment – legislative history concerning the words, “significant degree” and “material degree” – employee’s negative perceptions of employment arising from an earlier condition – perception  held by the employee will meet a “reality” test for the purpose of the definition of “disease” if it is a perception about an incident or state of affairs that actually happened – whether the ailment was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner – reviewable decision set aside.

Legislation

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 5A, 5B, 14

Cases

Comcare v Sahu-Khan [2007] FCA 15

Dean v Australian Postal Commission [2010] 52 AAR 54

Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth (1985) 9 FCR 36

Wiegand v Comcare [2002] FCA 1464

Secondary Materials

Explanatory Memorandum to the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2006

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President Ian Hanger AM QC

12 February 2019

INTRODUCTION

1. The Applicant, Mr Wayne Napper, has applied to the Tribunal for a review of a decision under s 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) in which the Respondent, Comcare, denied liability to compensate him for his claimed psychological condition which has been diagnosed as aggravation of major depressive disorder with psychotic features and schizoaffective disorder.

   BACKGROUND

2. From some time in 2013 until 3 March 2016, Mr Napper was employed by Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate (the Directorate) and worked in McCarthy House with responsibility for a number of irrigation systems across the parks of Canberra. He gave evidence that it was his job to keep the irrigation system for the parks functioning properly. This involved liaison between the Directorate and the contractors who performed physical functions such as repairing the system when it was malfunctioning.

3. In late 2015, the city was in the grip of a drought or at least an extremely dry summer and therefore relying heavily on the irrigation systems. A lot of the systems were very old and continually having problems. In particular Mr Napper was responsible for looking after the nature strip in Northbourne Avenue, and at that time a great deal of construction work was being carried out on Northbourne Avenue with respect to the light rail project and it was not easy to keep the irrigation system working. Mr Napper said he was running around being a bit of policeman because you had to identify which contractor it was that had damaged the irrigation system. So, that was extremely difficult, because they started extremely early in the mornings. So usually by the time I had tested the system again, to find if there was new damage, quite often I wouldn’t be able to find the contractor responsible for the damage. Mr Napper had to attempt to find the contractor responsible for damaging the system and then had to facilitate the repair. On top of that he was still carrying out his usual function of looking after the irrigation systems for other parts of Canberra.

4. He described the work in the latter months of 2015 as being a pretty thankless task. Damage was happening almost daily, and it became extreme stressful. He describes the stress as causing him to sleep badly. He became short tempered with his wife. He says that he spoke to his supervisor, Mr Joel Kelly, about problems in Northbourne Avenue. Mr Kelly agrees that there were some discussions regarding Northbourne Avenue but regarded those discussions as a fairly typical conversation with Mr Napper about ongoing or emergency issues throughout the park system. He did not regard the conversation as unusual or as a plea for help by Mr Napper. Mr Kelly agreed that the system in Northbourne Avenue was very old and prone to breaking down and that the work in Northbourne Avenue was resulting in further breakages in the system with which Mr Napper had to deal. Mr Kelly also agreed that Mr Napper took on more responsibility than he had to because he undertook tasks requested by people who were not  his supervisors and whom he had no obligation to assist. He had been cautioned against that but continued to undertake work that he was not necessarily required to do.

5. Mr Napper admitted to having a poor recollection of events between January 2016 and March 2016. There were other stressors in his life at the time. A member of his family who had his own health issues had split up from his girlfriend. His own sister died of cancer in November 2015 and it was suggested to him, although it was denied, that he was having trouble with renovations being carried out to his kitchen at home.

6. In February 2016 Mr Kelly his supervisor had a conversation with Mr Napper in which Mr Napper said that he did not feel he was coping. Mr Kelly was concerned about his mental state and very properly suggested he take some time off. The records show that Mr Napper took personal leave from 1 February 2016. He returned to work on 7 February 2016 and continued to work until 3 March 2016.

7. His wife gave evidence that towards the end of 2015 he was complaining to her of his heavy workload and of being pushed and pulled and that she noticed he was restless and not sleeping. She encouraged him to seek  medical help. He appeared exhausted. He was working very hard and always talking about work and the things that were occurring there. She encouraged him to just let things go and take a break. In January 2016, she was able to persuade him to go to see Dr Richard Radajewski,General Practitioner. That resulted in his taking a week off work, but when he returned to work, he reported that lots of things were going wrong and he was overwhelmed by work and felt he could not do it anymore. She said that the main focus of his conversation was about work and how much was going wrong. That continued up to the events that took place on 3 March 2016. I formed the opinion that she was an honest and reliable witness.

8. On 3 March 2016 Mr Napper sent an email to a number of people which could be said to be insulting to another employee. While not denying that he sent it, Mr Napper could not recollect having sent it. The content of the email relates to work that had been done in relation to the operation of the irrigation system which was causing him trouble.

9. Later on, on the same day, there was an incident relating to the issuing of a new security pass to him and, in the course of an attempt to get the pass issued, Mr Napper was abusive to a fellow employee and caused her to cry. He was unable to remember the conversation with the employee concerned. Nor did he remember much about the rest of the day. He did not recall having been sent home. He did not recall seeing a doctor or the events of the following day. It is apparent from a note by Ms Jane Carder, who was dealing with a complaint made by the employee against Mr Napper, that Mr Napper agreed with her that he had upset staff. He told her that he was at the time stressed about work and a family member’s welfare. He had also expressed concern about his dog and home renovations.

10. Ms Carder was quite rightly concerned for his wellbeing and thought that he needed to see a doctor. She asked him to go home straight away. There is some debate about the precise time and date of the meeting with Ms Carder, but, for present purposes, it is suffice to say that she was worried about his behaviour and health. It is common ground that it was out of character.

11. When he got home his wife reports that he was distressed, and she rang Dr Radajewski and made an appointment for Mr Napper to see him the following day. He returned from the doctor very distressed. His wife tried to calm and console him and invited friends over for dinner that night. Early the next morning, when she awoke, she found him out in the kitchen sitting on the kitchen floor crying and his conversation didn’t make sense. He told her that he had been walking around the oval.His conversation was rambling. At around 3:00 am  she called the ambulance which took him to hospital. At about this time he was delusional. He was discharged a day later on Sunday but within two days was readmitted to hospital. He was out of hospital for a short time and then readmitted. He eventually started back at work in September 2016 on a gradual return to work program. He was keen to get back to work and continued in his work.

    MEDICAL EVIDENCE

12. I was assisted in the hearing by the concurrent evidence of three psychiatrists who had each provided reports on Mr Napper. I was also assisted by the records of the General Practitioner, Dr Radajewski. Dr Radajewski reports that Mr Napper consulted with him on 4 March 2016 reporting that he had been very stressed at work and that he was significantly under resourced for the scope of his work role. He told the doctor of the events relating to becoming angry with a female work colleague which had resulted in her crying. He also reported that he was very worried about a family member’s health at that time. The doctor expressed the opinion that Mr Napper was suffering from significant work and personal stress leading to an adjustment disorder with acute anxiety. Dr Radajewski reports that Mr Napper was admitted as a mental health patient several days later as a result of worsening mood and that he was discharged on 17 March 2016 with a diagnosis of a brief psychotic disorder. Mr Napper was readmitted on 27 March 2016 for 18 days due to further behavioural and psychological disturbance after which he was discharged with a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder.

13. Dr Radajewski notes that Mr Napper had a previous psychological assessment after an altercation at work in about December 2013 which resulted in a period away from work with an assessment being made in early 2014 that he suffered from an adjustment disorder with acute anxiety and that there appeared to be a genetic predisposition in relation to it.

14. Reporting on the episode in early March, Dr Radajewski said, in my opinion it is more likely that the predisposing factors in Mr Napper’s current episode relate to work stressors in combination with worries regarding his family member’s health. He expresses the opinion that work related stress is a greater contributor component to Mr Napper’s overall presentation on this occasion than the personal factors. He also says, I do believe, however, that mounting work stressors are the most significant factor in Mr Napper’s presentation on this occasion as they were in December 2013.

15. Dr Catherine Oelrichs, Psychiatrist, in a report of 21 July 2016, notes that Mr Napper has attracted various diagnoses – the most recent diagnosis from a treating mental health team following discharge from hospital being that he suffered from schizoaffective disorder. She expressed the opinion that diagnostically he presented with symptoms more consistent with that of major depressive disorder with psychotic features. She notes that apart from the reports of stress in the workplace, there are other personal stressors relating to his family member’s mental health together with the natural grief and loss of a sister in November 2015. She says that he suffered from clinical symptoms in late 2015 and into early 2016 which became more severe in around March 2016. The symptoms initially declared themselves through increased stress, anxiety, sleep disturbance and irritability which progressed to psychotic symptoms possibly as early as February 2016 which had worsened in March 2016. She says that the main factors which contributed to his claimed condition are his reports of increasing feelings of stress within the workplace in combination with personal stresses relating to the loss of his sister in November 2015 and his family member’s on-going mental health problem which had been present since 2013 at least. She says that major factors contributing to his deterioration in March 2016 relate to his concerns surrounding his work pressure and that those factors contributed to his condition over a period of time from late 2015 where it appears that his condition may have been related to the loss of his sister.

16. Dr Christopher Cocks, Psychiatrist, provided a report dated 9 June 2017, and, after reviewing in great detail, the mental history concludes that the better view is that Mr Napper suffers from a schizoaffective disorder and that in early March 2016 he was suffering from symptoms of mood instability with psychotic symptoms. Dr Cocks based his report on all the information available to him but did not actually have a consultation with Mr Napper. He expresses the opinion that it is plausible that Mr Napper was showing early evidence of schizoaffective disorder as early as 2013 and first suffered an incapacity for work as a result of it at that time. His genetic vulnerability and psychosocial stress contributed to the relapse of his condition in March 2016. He expresses the opinion that there were some non-employment matters that also contributed to Mr Napper’s psychiatric condition in March 2016, being: the death of his sister; the renovation of his house in late 2015; and concerns about a family member’s mental health in late 2015.

17. The doctor declined to specify a degree for each contributing factor. He says that from his clinical experience stress can precipitate the onset and relapse of an illness such as schizoaffective disorder, but also says that it is likely that he would have developed the condition as a progression of the schizoaffective disorder irrespective of his employment because he was genetically, medically and environmentally vulnerable to the disorder.

18. Dr Antonella Ventura, Psychiatrist provided a report dated 4 April 2017 and made the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder which was predominately of constitutional genetic predisposition in origin but observed that stressful life events can be triggers to a new episode of the disorder. In her report she expresses the opinion that work stressors significantly contributed to the development of the psychotic disorder in 2016. She concludes that other factors such as genetic predisposition, family stressors, a history of cardiovascular disease as well as work stressors contributed to the onset of the diagnosed condition in 2016. She refers to it as a relapsing condition and that he would have developed the diagnosed condition irrespective of his employment.

19. These three experts had the benefit of a conference with each other prior to giving evidence concurrently.

20. The three psychiatrists were asked the question:

    What is the specific diagnosis of the psychological ailment or the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of such ailment from which the applicant suffered in January 2016, February 2016 and March 2016?

21. They agreed that the diagnosis was schizoaffective disorder and that it was a recurrence of a disorder manifested in 2013. The causes were multifactorial being biological, a genetic disposition, other factors, stress related cardiovascular illness, environmental factors relating to employment and non-work related stressors. They also agreed that as a result of his psychotic illness he had an underlying vulnerability that caused problems with his employment as opposed to his employment causing problems. They provided a list of non-work related or environmental factors including the family member’s illness, household renovations, death of a family dog, his wife’s skin condition and the loss of his sister in November 2015, and that it was not possible to determine the contribution made by particular stressors. The doctors agreed with the proposition that it was quite possible, if not likely, that if in the future Mr Napper had been exposed to significant stressors, he might have developed a mental illness or a relapse of his mental illness. However, had he not been exposed to significant stressors, he may not have developed a relapse in his mental illness.

22. Doctor Ventura added that she does not have any evidence one way or another whether in fact the changes in the workload around the watering system were perceived by Mr Napper or that his perception was a result of a mental illness. She says that the verbal altercation with the female staff member was a result of the mental illness, but she was not fully of the view that his perception of increased workload of problems with watering were a result of his psychotic illness. The other two psychiatrists did not dissent from this view.

23. The doctors were asked about the likelihood of a relapse of the psychotic condition occurring irrespective of work factors. Dr Cocks said I remain of the opinion that it would have been likely that he would have suffered a psychotic illness irrespective of work factors. Having said that, I still though, consider that what we know is that he perceived work to be a threat and therefore I am also of the opinion that that is a factor to consider amongst a multitude of other facts as potentially causative of his illness when it particularly emerged in March of 2015. Dr Oelrichs agreed with that. Dr Ventura says that Mr Napper would have had a relapse in times of high stress no matter what those stressors were, but she could not conclude that had it not been for the work being stressful that Mr Napper would have developed a relapse on this occasion. She made the point that work stressors are particularly meaningful to workers.

    ISSUES

24. There are three issues before the Tribunal:

    (a)whether Mr Napper suffers from an ailment as defined in s 4(1) of the Act;

    (b)if so, was the ailment contributed to, to a significant degree, by  Mr Napper’s employment such that he has a disease under s 5B(1) of the Act; and

    (c)if so, was the disease suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of Mr Napper’s employment such that his disease is excluded from the definition of injury in s 5A of the Act.

    LEGISLATION

25. Section 4(1) of  the Act provides:

    “ailment” means any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development).

26. Section 5A provides:  

    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.

1. Section 5B provides:

   (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.

   (2)In determining whether an ailment or aggravation was contributed to, to a significant degree, by an employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee, the follow matters may be taken into account:

   (a)  the duration of the employment;

   (b)  the nature of, and particular tasks involve in, the employment;

   (c)  any predisposition of the employee to the ailment or aggravation;

   (d)  any activities of the employee not related to the employment;

   (e)  any other matters affecting the employee’s health.

   This subsection does not limit the matters thate may be taken into account.

   (3)In this Act:

   “significant degree” means a degress that is substantially more than material.

   CONTENTIONS

2. The submission made on behalf of Mr Napper is that he suffered a disease or an ailment at the time at which he ceased work on about 3 March 2016, and that the stress at work significantly contributed to the development of that ailment. In support of that proposition, Mr Napper refers to the evidence of the three psychiatrists and of Dr Radajewski, the General Practitioner, who first treated him. That evidence is set out above. Counsel forMr Napper submits that  he sustained a psychotic injury, or an injury appropriately described as schizoaffective disorder recurrence.

3. Comcare submits that the evidence fails to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Napper suffered an ailment, or an aggravation, that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment.

4. Comcare points to legislative history of the section which, prior to 2007, did not use the words significant degree but used the words material degree. Parliament decided to lift the threshold relating to the contribution by employment to the ailment or aggravation that needs to be demonstrated to satisfy the definition of disease to something that is substantially more than material.[1]

   [1] Explanatory Memorandum to the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016.

5. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill to amend the act considered four options in relation to the onus that must be discharged by the applicant. The first was that there be no change. The second was that the term material degree should be defined. The third was the proposal that was adopted i.e. that the employment must have contributed to a significant degree to the contraction or aggravation of the disease. The fourth was that the applicant be required to establish that the employment was the significant contribution to the contraction of a disease.

6. The fourth option was ruled out as placing an unreasonable onus on applicants because it would be difficult to establish that employment made a more significant contribution than some other factor or factors, and differences of opinion between medical experts would be expected.

7. One begins a consideration of whether the employment contributed to a significant degree by taking into account the instruction provided in s 5B(3) that the degree must be substantially more than material.

8. I have been referred to Comcare v Sahu-Khan [2007] FCA 15 – a case dealing with the meaning of material degree – where Finn J at [13], referring approvingly to other decisions, says that the word material imposes an evaluative threshold.

9. Comcare submits that the test in relation to significant is not satisfied where there is only a causal connection between employment and an ailment or aggravation; that is, where employment is only “a” contributing factor potentially of several contributing factors.

10. Comcare further submits that properly construed the significant degree test is not met where an employee’s negative perceptions of employment arises from an earlier condition such that workplace incidents are what may be described as an inert focus for a neurosis determined by other factors.[2]

    [2]Dean v Australian Postal Commission [2010] 52 AAR 54 at [36]

11. Comcare also submits that the meeting on 3 March 2016, after which Mr Napper went home and was absent from work, was an event without which  Mr Napper would not have suffered a disease for the purposes of the Act and that the meeting constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the applicant’s employment.

    CONSIDERATION

12. I accept that Mr Napper suffers a genetic predisposition to schizoaffective disorder which at times in his life results in a breakdown in his normal functioning. Most of the time he functions satisfactorily, and it was not until late in his life that he appears to have had the first breakdown. He suffered a stress related claim in 2012/13. On or about 3 March 2016 he suffered such a breakdown resulting in what was described as a relapse of the disorder. The evidence establishes that it is likely that this had been developing for some time since around the end of January. Mr Nolan suggested he take some time off and he took a week of leave.

13. I am satisfied that the events (his email and his rudeness to a fellow employee) that occurred on or about 3 March 2016 were out of character and that at that time he was already suffering from the disorder and had been for some weeks. It follows that there is nothing in the argument that the action that took place on that day when he was told to go home and see a doctor was other than reasonable administrative action. The events of that day took place because of the disorder. The action taken by Ms Carder was entirely reasonable and appropriate. Her actions did not contribute to the disorder suffered by Mr Napper.

14. I am satisfied that Mr Napper exaggerated the amount of work for which he was responsible. However he was a conscientious employee who according to Ms Carder occasionally worked outside of scheduled work hours including on weekends. She describes him as intense, discussed matters in significant depth, had difficulty letting things go, and dwelled on things. For example, concern over aging pumps or watering savings in parks.

15. I am also satisfied that in late 2015 and early 2016 he was stressed by the responsibility of keeping the irrigation system functioning adequately in dry weather and in particular in Northbourne Avenue. Mr Nolan agrees that the system was no good… it was always a problem… The trees were dependent on the irrigation system. The government had already labelled the trees to have them removed, we didn’t see why we had to keep the irrigation going, it had excavators, sucker trucks, utes, people working on it all the time.

16. It was not suggested to Mr Napper in his cross examination that he was told to let things slide or not to keep the system operating and I accept Mr Napper’s evidence that he was doing his best to ensure it functioned. Mr Nolan also agree that Mr Napper expressed concerns to him about the stress he was experiencing. I therefore accept that the dry weather, together with problems that resulted from the work being undertaken in Northbourne Avenue, were causing Mr Napper substantial stress.

17. To succeed, Mr Napper must show that employment contributed to a significant degree to the contraction or aggravation of an ailment.

18. It is not sufficient to show that employment is one of many factors that precipitated the schizoaffective breakdown on this occasion. However, the fact that there might be a number of contributing factors does not mean one has to attribute a percentage contribution to each factor. The only issue is as to whether the employment was a significant factor. There may be more than one significant factor. The legislation does not require precision and does not require an applicant to prove that the employment was  ‘the’ significant factor. The test to be applied is simply a weighing of contributions and determining whether the employment is more than just material and can be properly described as contributing to a significant degree, in this case, to the schizoaffective breakdown that occurred in the days leading up to and on 3 March 2016.

19. Section 5B of the Act provides guidance as to determining whether an ailment was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employment. It provides that the Tribunal may take into account the following:

    (a)The duration of employment— Mr Napper had been working for the Government since 1981;

    (b)The nature of, and particular tasks involved in the employment have been dealt with above;

    (c)Any predisposition of the employee to the ailment or aggravation—Mr Napper was clearly predisposed to suffering periodic breakdowns or psychotic episodes arising from his schizoaffective disorder – that is common ground between the psychiatrists. Furthermore, the balance of the evidence is that he would suffer periodic psychotic episodes regardless of his work. That does not mean that this claim fails.[3] Stress is a precipitating factor. Without significant stressors he may not have relapsed at this time.

    (d)Any activities not related to employment — there were a number of other factors contributing to his breakdown in March--concern re his family member; concern re his dog; possibly problems relating to renovation of his kitchen; the death in November of his sister, etc.;

    (e)Other matters affecting the employee’s health — there are no other matters beyond the matters that relate to the schizoaffective disorder. (These do involve other physical conditions but only in so far as they have a contribution to make to the schizoaffective disorder.)

    [3] Wiegand v Comcare [2002] FCA 1464 at [27].

20. The difficulty in this matter relates not so much as to whether stress made a contribution to a significant degree to the aggravation of Mr Napper’s disorder but as to whether the stress was only perceived and was a symptom of his disorder. The decision in Wiegand  v Comcare[4] was decided at a time when the applicant had to demonstrate that the employment contributed to a material degree to the ailment or aggravation, but the principle applied in that case is just as applicable to the amended legislation which raised the onus by requiring the employee to show that employment contributed to a significant degree to the ailment or aggravation. That principle is that regardless of his underlying condition the employee must show that he was exposed in the course of his employment to a state of affairs that made a significant contribution to his ailment.

    [4] [2002] FCA 1464.

21. A perception, unjustified by any objective facts would not sastify any test of being caused by employment[5]. It is simply a product of the troubled mind of the person, but a “perception  held by the employee will meet a “reality” test for the purpose of the definition of “disease” if it is a perception about an incident or state of affairs that actually happened”.[6]

    [5] Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth (1985) 9 FCR 36 at 41.

    [6] Wiegand  v Comcare [2002] FCA 1464 at [24].

22. Furthermore, if the incident or state of affairs to which the worker was  exposed caused incapacity to occur, it is not to the point, that had such exposure not happened, the disease may have caused the employee to become incapacitated at the same time in whatever situation or place the worker happened to be.[7]

    [7] Wiegand  v Comcare [2002] FCA 1464 at [27].

23. The psychiatrists agreed that as a result of his psychotic illness he had an underlying vulnerability that caused problems with his employment as opposed to his employment causing problems. They agree that being prone to the disorder, he would have suffered a relapse at some time in any event. Presumably he will suffer relapses in the future. However, Dr Ventura said that work stressors are particularly important to employees and opined that work stressors significantly contributed to the development of the psychotic disorder in 2016. The difficulty acknowledged by Dr Ventura is that the doctor said she did not know if there were actually increased stressors at work. She said, I don’t have any evidence one way or the other, whether in fact, there has been changes in the workload around the said watering system. Therefore, I can’t fully say that his perception was accurate or a result of mental illness. I am of the view, as expressed, and I think the rest of us are in agreement, that the verbal altercation with a female staff member was a result of mental illness. But, I’m not fully of the view that his perception of increased workload and problems with watering systems were a result of psychotic illness. He may be more vulnerable to stressors because of his psychotic illness, but his perception might have been correct.

24. Dr Cocks agreed.

25. I am satisfied on the evidence that there were increased stressors at work because of the dry weather, the age of the system, taken in conjunction with the work being undertaken in Northbourne Avenue. I am satisfied that while there were some other stressors in his life at the time, the stress at work was certainly more than just material. It was significant. So much is clear from the evidence of his GP, Dr Radajewski, and from the psychiatric reports of Dr Ventura and Dr Oelrichs.

26. Dr Radajewski says mounting work stressors are the most significant factor in Mr Napper’s presentation on this occasion. While that doctor is a GP and not a psychiatrist, he does diagnose him with a psychiatric disorder and clearly is not of the opinion that the work stress is caused by the disorder. Dr Oelrichs in her report says that the main factors which contributed to his claimed condition are his reports of increasing feelings of stress within the workplace in combination with other factors

27. Mr Napper has established that on the balance of probabilities his employment contributed to a significant degree to the aggravation in March 2016 of his underlying schizoaffective disorder.

28. The decision under review should be set aside and a decision substituted that the aggravation of the Applicant’s schizoaffective disorder prior to 3 March 2016 was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment.

I certify that the preceding 54 (fifty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Ian Hanger AM QC

........................................................................

Associate

Dated: 12 February 2019

Date(s) of hearing:	26-27 September 2018
Date final submissions received:	27 September 2018
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Karl Pattenden
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Mr Joshua Carroll, Slater & Gordon Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Peter Woulfe
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Henry Chang, Australian Government Solicitor