Siganto v Bunjum Aboriginal Corporation
[2021] NSWPIC 431
•25 October 2021
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
CITATION: | Siganto v Bunjum Aboriginal Corporation [2021] NSWPIC 431 |
| APPLICANT: | Susan Siganto |
| RESPONDENT: | Bunjum Aboriginal Corporation |
| MEMBER: | John Isaksen |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 25 October 2021 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for permanent impairment for psychological injury; worker claims being intimidated and feeling unsafe at her workplace as being the cause of her injury; whether the worker sustained a disease injury pursuant to section 4 (b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; reference to Perry v Tanine Pty Ltd; reference to the application of ‘main contributing factor’ from AV v AW; Held – the worker’s employment was the main contributing factor to the contracting of a psychological disease; matter remitted to President for referral to Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | 1. The applicant sustained a psychological injury in the course of her employment with the respondent by way of a disease injury pursuant to section 4 (b)(i) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, with a deemed date of injury of 16 September 2019. |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. This matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor as follows: Date of injury: 16 September 2019 Body Part: Psychological injury Method of Assessment: Whole Person Impairment 2. The following documents are to be forwarded to the Medical Assessor: (a) the Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents; (b) Reply and attached documents, and (c) a copy of this decision. 3. This matter is to be remitted back to a Member following the publication of the Medical Assessment Certificate, or any appeal therefrom, to determine the outstanding claim for weekly payments of compensation. 4. The parties are to file and serve any further evidence to be relied upon in regard to the claim for weekly payments of compensation no later than seven days before a further telephone conference is set by the Commission in regard to the outstanding claim for weekly payments of compensation. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Susan Siganto, claims that she sustained a psychological injury in the course of her employment as a Case Worker with the respondent, Bunjum Aboriginal Corporation.
The applicant attended her general practitioner, Dr Currie, on 16 September 2019 and was provided with a medical certificate which certified her unfit for work until 30 September 2019.
The applicant claims that she sustained a psychological injury arising out of or in the course of her employment, being an injury which meets the requirements of section 4 (a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), and, or in the alternative, as a disease injury as provided for by section 4 (b) of the 1987 Act.
The applicant states that her employment with the respondent was terminated on
5 December 2019.The applicant was paid weekly payments of compensation until 19 April 2020, after which liability for injury was disputed by the respondent. The applicant claims weekly payments of compensation from 20 April 2020 and a lump sum payment for 19% whole person impairment for psychological injury.
The respondent disputes that the applicant sustained an injury in the course of her employment with the respondent or that she has sustained a disease injury in the course of her employment with the respondent.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The parties agree that the following issue remains in dispute:
(a) whether the applicant sustained an injury arising out of or in the course of her employment with the respondent (section 4 (a) of the 1987 Act), and, or in the alternative, whether the applicant sustained a disease injury in the course of her employment with the respondent (section 4 (b) of the 1987 Act).
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The parties attended a conference and hearing on 15 October 2021. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
Mr Hammond appeared for the applicant, instructed by Mr Warren. Ms Balendra appeared for the respondent, instructed by Ms El-Khatib.
The hearing was conducted by telephone in accordance with the protocols set by the Commission as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
The parties agreed that in the event that the applicant was successful in establishing that she had sustained an injury as provided for by section 4 of the 1987 Act, this matter would be referred for an assessment of whole person impairment and the claim for weekly payments would be remitted back to a Member following the publication of the Medical Assessment Certificate for determination of the outstanding claim for weekly payments of compensation.
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence
The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and considered in making this determination:
(a) the Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) and attached documents, and
(b) Reply and attached documents.
Oral evidence
There was no application to adduce oral evidence or to cross examine the applicant.
The applicant’s evidence
The applicant has provided statements dated 13 January 2020 and 11 August 2021.
The applicant states that she commenced employment as a female Counsellor with the respondent in August 2016. She states that in June 2019 she accepted a position of Case Worker with the respondent, working 21 hours per week in that position. The Reply includes a copy of an Employment Contract between the applicant and respondent for that position, which was for a term of one year.
The applicant states that she took out an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) in November 2018 against Reninya Roberts, which followed an incident on 8 November 2018 when Reninya Roberts threw food at the applicant, threatened to assault the applicant and called the applicant “every name under the sun”. The applicant does not allege that this incident occurred at work.
The applicant states that she informed her manager, Nancy Walke, that she had taken out the AVO against Reninya Roberts. She states that Ms Walke said that things would be put in place for the applicant’s safety, but this never happened.
The applicant states the mother of Reninya Roberts, Margaret Roberts, would attend the office of the respondent to attend a workshop, and Margaret Roberts would grunt and throw dirty looks at the applicant.
The applicant states that Reninya Roberts attended the respondent’s office on days when
Ms Walke was out of the office but when the applicant was working there. She states that Reninya Roberts was supposed to make an appointment before she came to the office so that the applicant would not be in the office at the same time. The applicant states:“Reninya and Margaret continued to attend the Bunjum office causing me stress and anxiety every time I saw them. Even though they did not say anything to me their body language was intimidating.”
The applicant states that Reninya Roberts was the niece of Nita Roberts, the General Manager for the respondent, and Nita Roberts was well aware of the trouble being caused by Reninya Roberts and Margaret Roberts, but never acknowledged the issue and made no effort to ensure the applicant’s safety at the office.
The applicant states that on 16 September 2019 she saw her general practitioner, Dr Currie, because she was having dreams of Reninya Roberts trying to get her and was thinking of ways of getting away from Reninya Roberts. She states that Dr Currie diagnosed her with work related stress and anxiety disorder and was a given a medical certificate.
The applicant states that on 11 November 2019 she was given a clearance by Dr Currie to work two days per week, but there was a meeting held with management the next day and the applicant was stood down from her duties. She states that her employment with the respondent was terminated on 5 December 2019. She states that the reason given was that she had not been working her allocated hours each week.
The applicant states that she now spends most of her time at home and is not motivated enough to dress and get out of her pyjamas.
Lay evidence relied upon by the respondent
Nancy Walke has provided a statement dated 22 January 2020. Ms Walke states that she is employed as Lead Support Manager/Coordinator, and has been employed with the respondent for the past three years.
Ms Walke states that she was aware of the AVO taken out by the applicant and the person who the AVO applied to. She states that she advised the applicant that because the respondent provided a service to the community, it could not stop or prevent a community member attending the office, although there were ways of providing a safe environment for the applicant.
Ms Walke states that she can only recall one time when Reninya Roberts came to the office, and it was only to the reception area, and the applicant was not there. In a separate statement dated 14 January 2020, Ms Walke identifies that event occurring on 10 September 2020.
Ms Walke states that the applicant spent most of her time out in the community visiting members.
Ms Walke states that the applicant never approached her with regard to safety concerns and that the applicant was able to see her clients out of view. She also states that after the applicant came back from leave a meeting was held where it was discussed that the door between reception and the front offices could always be closed if the applicant felt the need to feel safe.
Nita Roberts has provided a statement dated 22 January 2020. Ms Roberts states that she has been employed as General Manager for the respondent for the past 10 years.
Ms Roberts states that at a meeting around Christmas 2018 the applicant informed her that the applicant had taken out an AVO on a community member. She states that she told the applicant that no member of the community could be excluded from attending the respondent’s office if assistance was required because the respondent was funded as a community service. Ms Roberts states that the applicant advised that she would remove any reference to Bunjum and this was the last that Ms Roberts heard of this.
Ms Roberts states that on 16 September 2019 she was given a medical certificate from
Ms Walke which stated that the applicant was suffering from work related stress and anxiety.
There is a statement from Daniel Roberts dated 14 January 2020. Mr Roberts states that he is employed by the respondent as an admin/reception worker. Mr Roberts states that to his knowledge the community member in question only attended the respondent’s office on three occasions. Mr Roberts identifies those three occasions to be in September 2019. He states that the applicant was not present on two of those occasions, and on the other occasion the community member was there for less than five minutes, and Mr Roberts did not observe any communication between the community member and the applicant.
The medical evidence
Dr Currie has provided a report dated 15 July 2020. The history of injury recorded by
Dr Currie is as follows:“She presented first to me on the 16th September 2019 having been abused in her workplace by members of the Roberts family.
A woman (related to the manager of her workplace) came in and abused her. She had been abused, threatened and had food thrown at her in the workplace.
She had taken out an A.V.O. against the woman and despite this the woman had come into her workplace and abused her.”
Dr Currie writes that the applicant felt exposed, threatened, scared and worried as they were members of her manager’s family. He writes that the applicant felt very unsafe and vulnerable in her workplace.
Dr Currie also provides handwritten answers to EML, which appear to be dated 3 January 2020, and which detail the applicant’s symptoms as: “Anxiety, feeling of being unsafe & feeling of being stressed” and also “she’s afraid to return to her workplace”.
There is the first page of a report from Matthew Wagner, psychologist, dated 9 November 2020, in the ARD. Mr Wagner states that he saw the applicant on three occasions.
Mr Wagner records the applicant suffered a workplace injury after being verbally abused and threatened by an individual during the normal course of her duties with the respondent.Dr Takyar, psychiatrist, has provided a report at the request of the applicant’s solicitors dated 27 November 2020.
Dr Takyar records that the applicant took out an intervention order against the manager’s niece in August 2018 following an incident in the street when this female abused and threw a sandwich at the applicant, and told the applicant “that she would go to jail” over the applicant.
Dr Takyar records that the respondent did not enforce the AVO and did not put anything in place for the applicant to be safe in the workplace. He records that the female just came into the respondent’s office and stared at the applicant. Dr Takyar records that the applicant was told that the respondent could do nothing about this because this female was a community member.
Dr Takyar also records:
“She reported changes in her mental state ‘after the day when she got in my face and said that she do time over me - she was real violent - they all had to hold her back, her family members had to, I could barely stand - I just started to shake and tremble.”
Dr Takyar records that the applicant worked from August 2018 to December 2019, but the female “started coming weekly” and would attend (presumably the respondent’s office) without any warning and give the applicant the death stare. He records that the applicant had to leave work a couple of times because of how scared she became.
Dr Takyar notes that the applicant has no pre-existing psychiatric history. He states that she began to experience anxiety and psychiatric difficulties after she was threatened by the niece of the manager, and that the applicant felt the threats continue with the female attending the applicant’s workplace and staring at the applicant.
Dr Takyar concludes:
“Ms Siganto presents with DSM-5 Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood (chronic) as a result of her employment - which was the main contributing factor.”
Dr Lotz has provided a report at the request of the insurer for the respondent dated 3 March 2020.
Dr Lotz records that the applicant took out an AVO against Ms Roberts after Ms Roberts verbally attacked and threw food at the applicant in a public place. He records that
Ms Roberts would come into the respondent’s office and glare at the applicant, which caused the applicant to feel intimidated and threatened.Dr Lotz records that the applicant was stood down in December 2019 due to not working her allocated hours, but that the applicant states that the respondent had no idea that she was seeing clients before and after work. He records that the applicant felt she was being targeted because Ms Roberts was the niece of the manager.
Dr Lotz writes that the applicant appears to have no significant past psychiatric history. He makes a diagnosis of Acute Stress Disorder.
Dr Lotz opines:
“It does appear the issues are directly related to the aggressive behaviour of Ms Roberts. Ms Siganto also feels unfairly treated by the alleged unfair dismissal in December 2019 which she attributes to the connection of Ms Roberts to the general manager of her previous employment.”
Dr Lotz concludes: “It does not appear that employment per se has been the substantial contributing factor, rather the behaviour of Ms Roberts”. Dr Lotz notes that the applicant did state that there was poor security in the office, but there have been more security doors since the alleged behaviour of Ms Roberts.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Whether the applicant sustained an injury arising out of or in the course of her employment with the respondent
Mr Hammond for the applicant submits the evidence would allow for a finding that the applicant sustained a personal injury arising out of or in the course of her employment as provided for by section 4 (a) of the 1987 Act, and, or in the alternative, that the applicant sustained a disease injury whereby the applicant’s employment was the main contributing factor to the contraction of that disease.
Mr Hammond submits that the cause of the applicant’s psychiatric injury is derived from both the behaviour of Reninya Roberts at the applicant’s workplace, which caused the applicant to feel intimidated, and also the lack of action taken by the respondent towards her security, which led to a perception of a lack of security for her welfare.
Ms Balendra for the respondent submits that the applicant has not identified a singular event in the workplace that is the cause of a personal injury that has been sustained by the applicant, so that section 4 (a) of the 1987 Act on its own cannot be satisfied.
Ms Balendra submits that the main contributing factor to the psychological injury sustained by the applicant happens outside of the applicant’s employment, being the incident with Reninya Roberts in November 2018, which led to the applicant applying for an AVO. She submits that this is confirmed by Dr Takyar, who is the expert relied upon by the applicant, when Dr Takyar records that the applicant reported changes in her mental state after the day when this incident occurred.
Ms Balendra also submits that the lay evidence relied upon by the respondent confirms that Reninya Roberts did not attend the respondent’s office when the applicant was there, and that the applicant spent a lot of time away from the office, so that there was little risk of
Ms Roberts confronting the applicant. Furthermore, the respondent did takes steps to limit any contact between the applicant and Reninya Roberts at the office.In Trustees of the Society of St Vincent de Paul (NSW) v Maxwell James Kear as administrator of the estate of Anthony John Kear [2014] NSWWCCPD 47 (Kear), DP Roche considered the meaning of a personal injury and said at [38]:
“The authorities establish that a ‘personal injury’ is ‘a sudden and ascertainable or dramatic physiological change or disturbance of the normal physiological state’ (Gleeson CJ and Kirby J in [Petkoska Kennedy Cleaning Services Pty Ltd v Petkoska [2000] HCA 45; 200 CLR 286] at [39]). In other words, as stated at [81] in [North Coast Area Health Service v Felstead [2011] NSWWCCPD 51 (Felstead)] it is ‘a sudden identifiable pathological change’”.
In the decision of Felstead Roche DP had said at [81]:
“It follows that the description of a personal injury as “a sudden identifiable pathological change” is consistent with the authorities. It suggests no more than that, to qualify as a personal injury, there must be some sudden and ascertainable or dramatic physiological change or disturbance of the physiological state. Such a change or disturbance may be as simple as a bruise or a soft tissue strain.”
Although in Kear and Felstead DP Roche referred to a “dramatic physiological change”, there should be no reason why the criteria for a personal injury, being ‘a sudden identifiable pathological change’, should not also apply to psychological injury.
The difficulty for the applicant in establishing an injury pursuant to section 4 (a) of the 1987 Act, without the assistance of section 4 (b), is that the applicant does not provide evidence of any specific incident involving Reninya Roberts or Margaret Roberts at her workplace, whereby she experienced a decline or worsening of psychological symptoms at the time or soon thereafter, in response to any confrontational conduct by either or both of those two women.
Furthermore, there is nothing recorded by either Dr Takyar or Dr Lotz of any specific incident at the applicant’s workplace which caused a change in the applicant’s psychological condition.
Dr Currie does record in his report dated 15 July 2020 the applicant being “abused, threatened and had food thrown at her in the workplace”, and the applicant feeling threatened, scared and worried. However, I have concluded that this is a misunderstanding on the part of Dr Currie. The applicant’s evidence, and the details she has provided to
Dr Takyar and Dr Lotz, places that event in November 2018 and outside of the applicant’s workplace, and it is this event which is the motivation for the applicant obtaining a restraining order against Reninya Roberts.The incomplete report of Mr Wagner is also of no assistance because he simply states that the applicant suffered a workplace injury after being verbally abused and threatened during the normal course of her duties without providing any further details of when and how those threats and abuse were made.
Therefore, while I understand the submissions made by Mr Hammond to support a finding of personal injury pursuant to section 4 (a) of the 1987 Act, the applicant has not provided sufficient lay and medical evidence to make a finding that there was a sudden pathological change in the applicant’s psychological condition at or soon after any specific incident involving Reninya Roberts or her mother at the applicant’s workplace.
The applicant’s evidence of Reninya Roberts and Margaret Roberts “causing me stress and anxiety every time I saw them” at the respondent’s office, and of her rumination about Reninya Roberts is consistent with the applicant having sustained a disease injury.
In Perry v Tanine Pty Ltd t/as Ermington Hotel (1998) 16 NSWCCR 253; [1998] NSWCC 14 (Perry), Burke CCJ was dealing with a carpal tunnel injury, but what he said has been applied more generally to a disease injury:
“In general it seems to me that carpal tunnel syndrome is a failure of an area of the body to cope with repeated stress imposed upon it and reacts to that stress by developing swelling, pain and loss of function as a consequence. That seems to me to be classically a disease process. Where work is the source of the relevant stress it connotes to me that the worker has received injury either by the contraction or aggravation of a disease.”
Section 4 (b) of the 1987 provides:
“In this Act:
Injury:
……………………….
(b) includes a disease injury, which means:
(i)a disease that is contracted by a worker in the course of employment but only if the employment is the main contributing factor to contracting the disease, and
(ii) the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration in the course of employment of any disease, but only if the employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the disease.”
Section 4 (b)(ii) would seem to have no application to the applicant’s situation because
Dr Takyar records the applicant as having no pre-existing psychiatric history, and Dr Lotz states that the applicant appears to have no significant past psychiatric history. As
DP Roche said in NSW Police Force v Gurnhill [2014] NSWWCCPD 12 (Gurnhill) at [67]:“The critical point is that before a finding can be made that a worker has suffered an aggravation injury under s 4(b)(ii), it is first necessary to establish (among other things) that he or she suffers from a disease (Semlitch per Windeyer J at 638).”
The applicant’s prospects of success therefore rest with her being able to establish a disease injury pursuant to section 4 (b)(i) of the 1987 Act, whereby her employment has been the main contributing factor to the contraction of a psychological disease injury.
The applicant does not provide any extensive details of when Reninya Roberts and Margaret Roberts caused the applicant “stress and anxiety”, other than to state that they continued to attend the respondent’s office. The period from when the applicant took out the AVO until she saw Dr Currie for stress and anxiety was some 10 months, but the applicant provides no details in her own evidence of how often these two women were attending the respondent’s office and intimidating the applicant while they were there. Was it on average once a week? Or was it multiple occasions over a short period of time? Dr Takyar records that Reninya Roberts “started coming in weekly”, although he does not record details of when and for how long this occurred.
Nonetheless, there is nothing that would cause me to doubt the applicant’s evidence. The applicant had been employed with the respondent since August 2016. Although she only worked six hours per week until she secured the position of Case Worker from 1 July 2019, the respondent has not provided any evidence of a lack of commitment to her work until the applicant’s attempt to return to work in November 2019. It is also reasonable to infer that the applicant was well enough regarded by the respondent for her to be offered the position of Case Worker in June 2019. The applicant had a good work history with the respondent, which only started to fracture once the applicant ceased worked in September 2019.
I also accept that Ms Walke has done her best to describe her observations over the period when the applicant claims that she sustained her psychological injury. However, it seems unlikely that Reninya Roberts would have only ever visited the respondent’s office on one occasion, and then within a week of the applicant seeking medical treatment for her psychological injury, when both Ms Walke and Nita Roberts acknowledge that the respondent’s office is open for community members to attend when they need assistance.
David Roberts states that Reninya Roberts only attended the respondent’s office on three occasions, and that was only in September 2019. Mr Roberts does not state how often or how long he has worked for the respondent. I am therefore left with the same concern that
I have from the evidence of Ms Walke, being that it is unlikely that Reninya Roberts did not visit the office at all in the preceding 10 months.I agree with the submission made by Mr Hammond that although Ms Walke only saw Reninya Roberts attend the respondent’s office on one occasion, that does not mean that there were no other visits made by Reninya Roberts to the office, especially as the potential interaction between Reninya Roberts and the applicant covered a period of 10 months.
There is also the applicant’s evidence that Margaret Roberts attended the women’s workshop and would grunt and throw dirty looks at the applicant, which is not challenged by Ms Walke or Nita Roberts.
From my review of the evidence, I am satisfied that there were multiple occasions between November 2018 and September 2019 when Reninya Roberts and Margaret Roberts attended the respondent’s office, and acted in an intimidatory manner towards the applicant, such that the applicant experienced stress and anxiety.
I also accept that the applicant’s concern regarding her safety in the workplace also had an effect upon her psychological condition.
Dr Takyar records that the respondent did not put anything in place for the applicant to be safe in the workplace. He does not specifically relate this to being a cause of the applicant’s psychological condition in his “Opinion”, although he opines that the failure by the respondent to protect the applicant would mean that the applicant’s symptoms would deteriorate further if she were to return to work with the respondent.
I have been critical of the report provided by Dr Currie because of his misunderstanding of when the applicant was abused in the workplace, but he does also record that the applicant felt very unsafe and vulnerable in her workplace. When Dr Currie is asked by EML for details of the applicant’s current symptoms, he includes “feeling of being unsafe” and “she’s afraid to return to her workplace”.
Ms Balendra submits that the evidence discloses that the respondent acted reasonably to reduce the risk of injury to the applicant. However, I agree with the submission made by
Mr Hammond that the critical issue is the applicant’s perception of the work environment she was placed in. As DP Roche said in Attorney General’s Department v K [2010] NSWWCCPD 76 (Attorney General’s Department v K) at [54]:“The critical question is whether the event or events complained of occurred in the workplace. If they did occur in the workplace and the worker perceived them as creating an ‘offensive or hostile working environment’, and a psychological injury has resulted, it is open to find that causation is established. A worker’s reaction to the events will always be subjective and will depend upon his or her personality and circumstances. It is not necessary to establish that the worker’s response was ‘rational, reasonable and proportional’.”
Having accepted that the applicant had been exposed to intimidatory behaviour of Reninya Roberts and Margaret Roberts, it is reasonable to conclude that the applicant perceived that her safety was not being acknowledged by the respondent. That in turn led to the applicant informing Dr Currie of feeling unsafe in the workplace, and for Dr Currie to identify this as a particular issue which was a cause of the applicant’s anxiety.
The applicant still bears the onus to prove that her employment was the main contributing factor to the contraction of her psychological disease. The decision of AV v AW [2020] NSWWCCPD 9 (AV v AW) addresses the requirements to satisfy section 4 (b)(ii) of the 1987 Act, but DP Snell provided a very helpful application of the term ‘main contributing factor’ as it appears in both sub-clauses of section 4 (b) of the 1987 Act, when he said at [78]:
“The test of ‘main contributing factor’ is one of causation. It involves consideration of the evidence overall, it is not purely a medical question. It involves an evaluative process, considering the causal factors to the aggravation, both work and non-work related. Medical evidence to address the ultimate question of whether the test of ‘main contributing factor’ is satisfied is both relevant and desirable. Its absence is not necessarily fatal, as satisfaction of the test is to be considered on the whole of the evidence.”
Ms Balendra relies upon the record made by Dr Takyar that the applicant reported changes in her mental state after the incident involving Reninya Roberts in the street, and submits that this was the cause for the onset of the applicant’s psychological symptoms, and that the applicant’s employment was not the main contributing factor to her injury.
However, it does not follow that the apparent cause for the onset of psychological symptoms is the main contributing factor to the contraction of the disease. As DP Snell said in AV v AW, the test for ‘main contributing factor’ involves an evaluative process which is to be considered on the whole of the evidence.
Although I accept that the applicant would have initially experienced anxiety and stress following her encounter with Reninya Roberts in the street in November 2019, the evidence reveals that thereafter the intimidatory behaviour by Reninya Roberts and her mother occurred while the applicant was at work, and that the applicant’s anxiety was compounded by her feeling unsafe at her workplace. There is no evidence of the intimidatory behaviour occurring anywhere other than the applicant’s workplace.
Dr Takyar provides the rather basic opinion that the applicant’s psychological injury was “as a result of her employment – being the main contributing factor”. However, that opinion must be read with his summary of how that injury developed, which is consistent with the review that I have undertaken of the lay evidence. In so doing, I am satisfied that Dr Takyar has addressed the issue of causation and prefer his opinion on the question of whether the applicant’s employment was the main contributing factor to the psychological disease injury which the applicant has sustained.
In any event, the opinion from Dr Lotz that the behaviour of Reninya Roberts has been the substantial contributing factor to the applicant’s injury, also supports a finding of a causal link between the applicant’s employment and her injury, given that I have accepted that the applicant was exposed to intimidatory behaviour by Reninya Roberts on multiple occasions at the applicant’s workplace.
I am therefore satisfied from a review of the evidence that the applicant sustained a psychological injury in the course of her employment with the respondent by way of a disease injury, whereby the applicant’s employment has been the main contributing factor to the contracting of that disease as provided for by section 4 (b)(i) of the 1987 Act.
The deemed date of injury is 16 September 2019, when the applicant first attended her general practitioner and obtained a medical certificate which certified her unfit for work due to work related stress and anxiety.
The matter will be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for the assessment of whole person impairment of the applicant’s psychological injury.
0
4
0