Spavould and Telstra Corporation Limited

[2002] AATA 835

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 835

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL               Nº V2001/1040

GENERAL  ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

Re:            STEPHEN LEWIS SPAVOULD

Applicant

And:         TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal:       Mr B.H. Pascoe, Senior Member
Date:             25 September 2002
Place:            Melbourne

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

(sgd) B.H. Pascoe
  Senior Member
  COMPENSATION – paranoid schizophrenic – perceptions of harassment, mistreatment and surveillance – whether contribution by employment – decision affirmed.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988

REASONS FOR DECISION

25 September 2002  Mr B.H. Pascoe, Senior Member

1. This is an application to review a decision of the respondent dated 28 July 2001, that compensation was not payable to the applicant pursuant to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 ("the Act") in respect of a claim for a psychiatric illness.  The applicant had made a claim for compensation on 4 May 2001 which referred to the date of injury/illness as 23 February 2001.

2. At the hearing the applicant, Mr S. Spavould, was not represented and the respondent was represented by Mr A. Moulds, of counsel. The only oral evidence was that given by Mr Spavould. In addition to the documents provided pursuant to s.37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975, the respondent tendered the following documents:

   Report of Dr M.J. Nathar, consultant psychiatrist, dated 18 March 2002 — exhibit R1
   Report of Dr M.J. Nathar, consultant psychiatrist, dated 6 May 2002 — exhibit R2
   Medical Records of Frankston Hospital - 21-27 October 1997 — exhibit R3
   Medical Records of Monash Medical Centre – 2 November 1997-26 October 1999 — exhibit R4

3. Mr Spavould was born on 19 July 1951.  He gave a history of having commenced employment in 1969 as a clerk with the South Australian Public Service.  In 1972 he joined the Australian Army ("the army") with the Signals Corps.  He served in the army until 1984 and became employed with Telstra Corporation Limited ("Telstra") on 24 April 1984.  He retired from Telstra on the grounds of invalidity on 10 October 2001.  Mr Spavould said that, for the whole of his working life, he had felt like a slave with no job security and no money.  He felt that he had been deliberately kept at a low level of employment and was required to do as he was told with no ability or opportunity to complain.  He felt that he had no standing, power or security.  He said that he had problems with Telstra from the beginning with the attitude of management being aggressive to him as a low-level employee.  He said that, as a service specialist providing service to special customers having difficulties with faults, he was required to be in an open plan office with other people sitting close to him.  Mr Spavould said that he was subject to abuse and mistreatment by others.  He complained to management from time to time but believed that management did not care about such things and were interested solely in getting the work done.  He believed that he had applied himself diligently and had expected to work at Telstra until age 65.  He said that he was forced to retire in 2001 on grounds of invalidity due to the harassment and ill treatment in the work place which was allowed and even encouraged by management.

4. Mr Spavould maintained that Telstra had a policy of surveillance of low level staff such as himself.  He was firmly convinced that a pin hole surveillance camera had been located in the ceiling above him and, if he slowed down for five minutes, a message would be given to someone to harass him.  He was convinced, also, that Telstra had arranged for him to be under surveillance, 24 hours a day and this was part of the system against low level employees, using Telstra vans to watch him and using the technical video and sound equipment possessed by Telstra.  He believed that there was a clear intention by the army and Telstra to ensure that he could earn only enough to survive and not be able to accumulate funds for security.  He believed that, as an unmarried man and not a member of any group, he was seen as unimportant and able to be mistreated and abused with no access to overtime income or promotion.

5. Mr Spavould had refused to provide a private address to Telstra.  In his application to this Tribunal he did not provide a home address but showed the address of a Dr Sutcliffe as the address for service of notices.  He said that on one occasion he had been pressured by Telstra to provide an after hours telephone number on the pretext of needing to contact him if required for overtime work.  He said that, prior to that time, he had been living at a boarding house and had been held hostage in his room by a criminal type of person.  He had left the boarding house but someone from Telstra had ascertained the address from Telstra's database and gave the new address to his former boarding house.  The result had been that this criminal person then appeared at the new address.  He said that he was forced to report this to the police for the person to move out.  Mr Spavould quoted several instances of where he believed that was being monitored and kept under surveillance by persons in adjoining apartments.  After discharge from a period in Frankston Hospital, Mr Spavould had believed that the medical staff there had continued to keep him under surveillance for some period in the hope that he would make a mistake, to provide an excuse for them to commit him to an institution or perform a lobotomy.  In his evidence, he stated that others had possessed an ability to control and interfere with his life since he was 10 years old.  He said that, having put up with over 25 years of abuse, harassment and mistreatment, he could not face the prospect of a further 15 years and was forced to retire.  He believed that Telstra should compensate him for that loss of earnings until age 65.

6. After concerns at the work performance of Mr Spavould, he was examined by Dr Nathar at the respondent's request, on 21 January 1998.  In his report, Dr Nathar said that he believed that Mr Spavould "has always been a somewhat schizoid, introverted man but in the last few months this has progressed into a paranoid schizophrenic illness mainly characterised by paranoid delusion".  Dr Nathar considered that there were some work limitations due to his illness and he would need continuing psychiatric treatment, medication and a degree of understanding by supervisors.  Dr Nathar, again, examined Mr Spavould on 6 December 1999, confirmed his earlier diagnosis, acknowledged that Mr Spavould would not participate in ongoing treatment and recommended that, if his shortcomings due to the psychiatric illness could not be accommodated, he should be retired on the grounds of psychiatric incapacity.  After a further examination on 14 August 2000, Dr Nathar considered that Mr Spavould could not fit into the work environment and again recommended retirement as being totally and permanently incapacitated for work.  An appointment was made for a further consultation with Dr Nathar on 15 March 2002 but Mr Spavould did not attend.  In his report of 18 March 2002, Dr Nathar had reviewed his previous notes and other reports provided by the respondent and concluded that the chronic paranoid schizophrenic illness from which Mr Spavould was suffering had not been contributed to or aggravated in any material degree by some event or circumstance in the course of his employment with Telstra and that the illness was showing its natural pre-existing progression.  Dr Nathar did examine Mr Spavould again on 30 April 2002 and saw no need to alter any opinions expressed in his 18 March 2002 report.

7. Mr Spavould was examined by Dr P. Smith, a consultant psychiatrist, on 23 January 2001.  Dr Smith confirmed the diagnosis of Dr Nathar and felt that Mr Spavould was incapable of undertaking a rehabilitation program and, while suggesting that he "may" be able to work in a highly structured unpressured environment", felt that it was unlikely that he would be able to engage in meaningful, sustained, full-time work within the public or private sectors.  In a report by Dr N. Lewis, a psychiatrist, of 4 June 2001, after examining Mr Spavould on that date, the diagnosis was said to be "a psychotic state in a paranoid and extremely obsessional personality".  Dr Lewis was of the opinion that the condition would have occurred in any employment, and that the probability was that it pre-dated his employment and that Mr Spavould would be totally incapacitated for work even if he had not been employed.

8. Mr Spavould was referred to the Crisis Assessment and Treatment Team at Monash Medical Centre by the police after he had complained of being monitored by people from Frankston Hospital.  He believed bricks had been removed from his wall so that he could be listened to and had heard people referring to him on mobile telephones.  He was diagnosed as having a paranoid personality disorder.  He was discharged as being a low-risk patient.

9. Mr Spavould was unable to provide evidence of any specific instance of harassment or mistreatment by Telstra.  His evidence consisted of generalised perceptions of being deliberately kept at a low level of income, of harassment and of being spied upon.  He was unable to provide any objective evidence to support such perceptions.  His evidence showed that such perceptions have existed since the commencement of his working life, some 33 years ago and possibly prior to that.  All of the medical evidence was clear that he is suffering from a longstanding paranoid schizophrenic illness and I have no difficulty in accepting the opinion of Dr Nathar and Dr Lewis that the condition is not related to his employment.  While Mr Spavould currently concentrates on Telstra as the body behind his current belief of being under 24 hour surveillance, it is clear that his paranoia extends to neighbours, other travellers on public transport and medical personnel.  There is simply no specific characteristic of Mr Spavould's employment with Telstra which can be shown as having contributed to his condition.  I accept that Mr Spavould thinks that his disability arose from his employment but this does not mean that the employment actually was a contributing factor in the development of his illness.  The perceptions of Mr Spavould are real to him but there is no evidence, objective or otherwise, to support a view that there is any reality in those perceptions.

10. As a consequence of the foregoing, I have no option but to affirm the decision under review that the applicant's employment with the respondent did not contribute to his illness.

    I certify that the ten [10] preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of
    Mr B.H. Pascoe, Senior Member

    (sgd)       Catherine Thomas
                  Clerk

    Date of Hearing:  16 August 2002
    Date of Decision:  25 September 2002
    Solicitor for the Applicant:           Nil —Self-represented
    Counsel for the Respondent:       Mr A. Moulds

    Solicitors for the Respondent:      Messrs Frenkel Partners