Wellington v Secretary, Department of Education (TAFE NSW)

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Wellington v Secretary, Department of Education (TAFE NSW) [2024] NSWPIC 106
APPLICANT:	Dallas Wellington
RESPONDENT:	Secretary, Department of Education (TAFE NSW)
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
DATE OF DECISION:	7 March 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly compensation following psychological injury deemed to have occurred on 22 March 2021; respondent relied on a section 11A defence in respect of discipline; held events on 2 and 3 March 2021 were not the whole or predominant cause of the applicant’s injury and earlier events including incidents of lateral violence, excessive workload and bullying were causative workplace stressors as well as the events on 2 and 3 March 2021; Held – respondent failed to discharge the onus to establish a section 11A defence; award for the applicant for weekly benefits.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Respondent to pay the applicant weekly compensation as follows: a. $1,899.89 per week from 8 March 2022 to 31 March 2022 pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act); b. $1,934.84 per week from 1 April 2022 to 6 July 2022 pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act, and c. $1,559.84 per week from 7 July 2022 to 8 August 2022 pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act. 2. Respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary s 60 expenses on production of accounts, receipts and/or Medicare Notice of Charge.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Dallas Wellington (the applicant) was employed by the respondent, Secretary, Department of Education (TAFE NSW) (the respondent). The applicant alleged that he sustained a primary psychiatric injury in the course of employment as a Head Teacher in Aboriginal Education Pathways. The deemed date of injury was 22 March 2021. The respondent was insured by Allianz (NSW) Limited as agent for NSW Self Insurance Corporation (the insurer) at all relevant times.
The respondent disputed liability in respect of the claim for weekly benefits and s 60 expenses in the s 78 Notices dated 1 April 2021, 2 September 2021 and 22 February 2023.
These proceedings were commenced by lodgement of an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) on 25 October 2023. The applicant sought weekly compensation from 8 March 2022 to 8 August 2022 and payment of medical expenses.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a)    was the applicant’s injury the result of reasonable action with respect to performance appraisal and/or discipline (s 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act))?
(b)    Whether the applicant had an entitlement to weekly compensation due to partial or total incapacity for work from 8 March 2022 to 8 August 2022.
(c)    Whether the applicant had an entitlement to medical expenses (s 60 of the 1987 Act)

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The parties attended a conciliation conference and arbitration via the video platform TEAMS on 25 January 2024. The applicant was represented by Mr Bruce McManamey, who was instructed by Ms Jacqueline Bates of New Law Pty Ltd. The respondent was represented by Mr John Gaitanis, who was instructed by Mr Daniel Tuxford of SMK Lawyers. Ms Cindy Rodriguez from the Allianz as Agent for NSW Self Insurance Corporation attended the conference.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. 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 been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
I was informed by the respondent’s counsel during the conciliation on 25 January 2024 that there was no-one available from the respondent to give any further instructions in this matter and respond to an offer made by the applicant. It appeared that the insurer was unable to negotiate further in the absence of the person with the authority to negotiate from the respondent being present. I consider therefore that settlement could not be fully explored in the conciliation phase of these proceedings. There was no explanation given for the absence of the person with the authority to negotiate from the respondent not being present. Not only did this impact on the conciliation process, but it also demonstrated a disturbing lack of respect and consideration for the applicant.
The matter was part heard on 25 January 2024. The respondent had made oral submissions during the arbitration concerning the issues in dispute and the applicant made submissions only concerning capacity. The applicant was directed to file written submissions by 9 February 2024 and the respondent to file any submissions in reply by 16 February 2024.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:
(a)    ARD and attached documents;
(b)    Reply and attached documents, and
(c)    Applications to Admit Late Documents filed by the respondent and dated 22 November 2023 and 22 January 2024 and attached documents.

SUBMISSIONS

The submissions of the respondent during the arbitration were recorded. I do not propose to repeat each of the arguments of counsel in these reasons but have taken all those arguments into account.
The respondent submitted that the reasonable actions of the respondent in respect of discipline on 2 and 3 March 2021 were the whole or predominant cause of the applicant’s psychological injury. The respondent did not rely on any action taken in respect of performance appraisal as being part of the s 11A defence.
Mr Gaitanis made oral submissions in which he argued that the applicant’s injury was caused wholly or predominantly by the events on 2 and 3 March 2021. He submitted that the applicant complained of symptoms after the events on 2 and 3 March 2021 and therefore on a common sense basis the the whole or predominant cause of the applicant’s injury was the events on 2 and 3 March 2021.
Mr McManamey made written submissions filed on 9 February 2024. He submitted that the respondent failed to make out a defence pursuant to s 11A of the 1987 Act as it could not prove that the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the respondent’s actions on 2 and 3 March 2021. Mr McManamey then argued that in any event, the actions taken by the respondent were not reasonable.
Mr Gaitanis made written submissions in reply dated 14 February 2024. He submitted that the applicant’s submissions did not deal with the force that should be afforded to the issue of the temporal connection between the events of 2 March 2021 and the state of mind of the applicant. He argued that the other matters that were raised by the applicant such as workload and experiencing lateral violence were nowhere near as influential in terms of causation of injury as the complaint that was made against him that day. Mr Gaitanis also argued that the actions taken by the respondent were reasonable and the investigation of the complaints themselves was entirely appropriate.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

The applicant claims weekly compensation in respect of an incapacity resulting from a psychological injury which was deemed to have occurred on 22 March 2021. The ARD claims that “whilst employed by the respondent the applicant sustained a psychological injury due to the nature and conditions of employment including but not limited to overwork, workplace conflict, bullying and lateral violence”.
The respondent does not dispute injury but seeks to rely upon a defence pursuant to s 11A of the 1987 Act.
The parties agreed that the pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) were $2,374.86 and indexed to $2,418.55 on 1 April 2022.

Evidence of the applicant

In a statement dated 11 June 2021, the applicant stated that he had worked for the respondent for the past nine years and took up the position as Head Teacher, Aboriginal Educational Pathways, Career Pathways, Aboriginal Languages & Employability Skills (CPALES) at EORA College in September 2015.
The applicant said that since taking up the position of Head Teacher at EORA he found that his workload was ever increasing as his sphere of responsibility expanded beyond the scope of his position as Head Teacher. He wrote:
“By 2018 when One TAFE Group 4 was implemented I found myself in a position where I was experiencing great inequality as my specialist Aboriginal identified role was being called upon to provide ever increasing input across TAFE NSW. My working hours continued to increase and I began to feel utter exhaustion. This was exacerbated by the lack of a Head Teacher Band 3 position. Unlike most Head Teachers in the state I was not afforded any line management whose responsibility would have been reporting and associated administrative support through to the HoST. Instead I found myself having to do all these duties as well as my own. I tried to change the situation. …My feedback was totally ignored.”
The applicant described being highly anxious about his workload. He outlined his increasing concerns about the workload and the expectations that were placed upon him.
The applicant described how his work involved dealing with the wellbeing and a cultural responsibility of Aboriginal students, dealing with community expectations both Aboriginal and wider, developing and implementing programs, and facilitating priorities as part of the Aboriginal student support reviews. This was in addition to his usual work as a teacher. He describes working very long hours and on many occasions being onsite at work until 10.00pm in an attempt to meet the additional workload. He also perceived that he was not being treated equally with the other head teachers.
The applicant stated that the EORA Teaching Section delivered 28 courses in 2019 and was nominated for and successfully awarded, a Gili Award in the category of Aboriginal Team of the Year for their contributions in 2019. He wrote:
“…this success came at an increasing workload which has been to the detriment of my health and wellbeing. I found myself constantly anxious thinking about what I had to do, how many tasks I was juggling at the same time, and how I would manage. I was not sleeping, going to bed exhausted and waking up exhausted.”
The applicant described attending a meeting at the Ultimo campus where he was placed at a table away from others and made to feel isolated, segregated, and humiliated. He says that unfortunately these types of situations were not isolated events.
The applicant stated that an ongoing issue in the Sydney region in the new One TAFE structure was how “CSO4444E” funds were used to provide classroom support and mentoring to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. He referred to an email from Ms Alison Armstrong on 15 September 2020 in which she noted that in the absence of an official process “this workload has fallen on Dallas and his team at EORA” and that no one else was willing to undertake his task.
The applicant described experiencing lateral violence and, in particular, attending a meeting in June 2019 at Ultimo where he was accused by Ms Kylie-Anne Watts of questioning her Aboriginality. The applicant denied this and described leaving the meeting in tears. He wrote:
“I felt devastated by the antagonism I experienced in the meeting and could not stop crying. This situation was yet another example of the constant undermining and conflict I have been experiencing…The situation was very hurtful as it was an attack coming from one of my own mob (another Aboriginal person)”.
The applicant said that his workload continued to escalate and became increasingly toxic to his health and well-being. The applicant set out a table showing the excess hours that he was working. The applicant estimated that he worked an additional 93 days in 2019 and 83 days in 2020.
The applicant stated that on 2 March 2021 he received the devastating news that allegations and complaints were made against him. He says that he was shocked to see the complaints were centred on hearsay and statements indicating that he had ignored staff or other similar types of statements. He wrote: “I was absolutely gutted that this complaint had been made against me, after all I had done in contributing to build EORA to become such a leading place of learning and college with my amazing team”. He said that he felt he was the target of vindictive harassment. He described feeling sickened and unable to cope and left work and went home in tears.
In a further statement dated 22 October 2023, the applicant said that he was called to a meeting without any information about the complaints and so was unable to prepare. He said that he then contacted his union and was advised to request an agenda and copy of the complaints. He says that when he received the complaints, he realised it was a witch hunt and it was three other Aboriginal employees who had targeted him and were out to get him. He noticed that some of the complaints happened three years previously. He says that the first time he became aware of the complaints was when he received a letter advising that a lawyer had been employed to investigate.
The applicant noted that the opening statement in the TAFE letter he received on 3 March 2012 read “the allegations are currently negatively impacting the collegiality and working environment of EORA College.” The applicant noted that the complainants were not staff members at EORA college but were all Aboriginal staff located at other campuses. The applicant stated that the complaints referred to “others”, but those people were never identified or at least their identity was not made known to the applicant and in the circumstances he was unable to respond to those allegations.
The applicant was suspended on full pay in March 2021.

Evidence of Alison Armstrong

In her first statement dated 25 March 2021, Ms Armstrong confirmed that the applicant was quite upset and very shocked that complaints were made against him, saying that he worked very hard. Ms Armstrong said that she assured the applicant that the complaint had not come from her and was not about his work as line manager.
In a statement dated 18 June 2021, Ms Armstrong confirmed that the applicant often complained of being overworked, a situation he told her had been the case for some time before Miss Armstrong became his line manager. She said that whilst steps were taken to hire another fulltime temporary teacher the additional teacher had not yet been employed at the time when the applicant went off work. Ms Armstong confirmed that the applicant told her that he was experiencing lateral violence from other Aboriginal people in the organisation.

Medical reports

Medico-legal reports

In a report dated 30 August 2021, Dr Emma Adams, consultant psychiatrist, noted that the applicant stated he had an excessive workload and would regularly work 10-12 hour days. She noted that he also described being subjected to bullying and harassment as well as lateral violence. He described being contacted on 2 March 2021 by his supervisor who said that allegations had been made against him and he was shocked and upset. Under the heading “Summary and Assessment”, Dr Adams identified the applicant as working excessive hours and feeling pressured. She considered that this situation most likely affected his psychological, physical, and emotional capacity to deal with additional stress.
Dr Adams also accepted that the applicant had been exposed to lateral violence particularly with respect to the allegations made by the other employees. Other causative factors identified were the failure of the respondent to address the applicant’s concerns and two aspects of the investigation. The first being that the applicant had to be off work and the second being that the information had not stayed confidential and affected his self esteem and concern about his reputation within the aboriginal community. Dr Adams expressed the view that the applicant had developed a major depressive illness as well as significant symptoms of anxiety as a result of those accumulated stressors.
When asked about causation Dr Adams considered “the work-related incidents as described by Mr Wellington caused the injury claim.” Dr Adams further explained “I consider Mr Wellington’s injury related to the nature of the work performed and the particular task of that work, in particular, his exposure to injury as the only Aboriginal head teacher.”
Dr Adams also considered the causation of the earlier factors in 2018. She wrote:
“Mr Wellington’s psychological condition is a result of bullying, harassment and lateral violence.
Some of these incidents occurred several years ago and they caused him distress at the time. When these were brought up again in the allegations in March 2021 in the context of his already been in a weakened and psychological state due to overwork, these were retraumatising.
I do not consider that they did not cause adverse psychological issues at the time in
2018. At that time, Mr Wellington had the capacity to deal with it without developing a major depression”.
Dr Adams went on to say that the workload had led to a situation of burn out in that he had lost his normal cognitive, physical, and emotional capacity to deal with stress. She wrote:
“I consider that Mr Wellington was barely managing prior to the disciplinary/performance appraisal action by the employer and the complaints as well as the way they were made were the final straw for him”.
Dr Adams considered there was one psychological injury contributed to by multiple different causes from the workplace. Dr Adams was asked to express an opinion concerning the whole or predominant cause of the applicant’s condition taking into account the evidence and the temporal connection between the injury and the notification of complaint matters. Dr Adams said:
“I consider the predominate cause, trigger of the applicant’s condition is the performance appraisal, disciplinary matters raised with the worker and the contents of these and the way it was raised in the context of previous excessive workload and bullying and harassment and exclusion.”
In his report dated 30 November 2022, Dr Dinnen recounted a history consistent with what appears in the applicant’s statement. Dr Dinnen noted that the applicant felt that the respondent was not seriously dealing with the issue he had experienced in the workplace of lateral violence which had come from other Aboriginal staff. The applicant told Dr Dinnen that this had taken a toll on him and his mental health.
The applicant told Dr Dinner about the investigation, which had arisen from the complaints lodged by three colleagues from other parts of the organisation. Dr Dinnen noted that the applicant stated that when the report was brought down it was kept from him. The applicant told Dr Dinnen that his initial reaction to the complaint was that he “went into shock”. The applicant told Dr Dinner that there had been the usual work pressures before these events “but he had not had any problems dealing with them.” The applicant told Dr Dinnen that he would work 14 hour days. Dr Dinnen noted that the applicant said that the report was not impartial and they had not interviewed any First Nations people outside the workplace. He told Dr Dinnen that most of the allegations were eventually proven to be unfounded.
Dr Dinnen was provided with the applicant’s statement dated 11 June 2021, the s 78 Notice and attachments, the report of Dr Angus-Leppan and the clinical notes from the Aboriginal Medical Service. Dr Dinnen diagnosed an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed moods. His opinion was that the condition was a result of workplace conflicts as described by the patient at interview and recorded in the documentation.

Records and reports of treating doctors

In a report dated 1 June 2022, Dr Angus-Leppen, treating psychiatrist, recorded a history of conflict in the workplace, complaints made against the applicant by co-workers, and perceptions of bullying and lateral violence. He noted that as a consequence of the complaints made, the applicant had been put on leave pending enquiry. Dr Angus-Leppen made a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. He considered that the cause of the applicant’s injury was the work environment, conflict, and process of enquiry. The combination of the history and the opinion is inconsistent with the view that the enquiry was the whole or predominant cause of the condition.
The clinical notes of the Aboriginal Medical Service, contained the following entries:
(a)    an entry dated 28 August 2017, Dr Rochelle Venturi recorded: “work has been hectic”. The applicant presented with a headache on the left temporal constant and present for several weeks and tension. She diagnosed a tension headache and management included “stress strategies”.
(b)    An entry dated 20 September 2017, Dr Daniel Magee wrote:
“Reason for contact:
Working condition problems
Works as teacher at TAFE
has been having issues with bullying from supervisor
Today they were in a meeting and this person verbally attacked Dallas about an issue that was unrelated to the meeting which he found very distressing and brought him to tears
Had to leave meeting and feels can't face going in to work tomorrow until he clears his head a bit
Looks quite upset
denies thoughts of self harm
Has spoken to the union about possible ways to deal with issue
Will have think about best way to manage
Note previous episodes of anxiety related to workplace bullying 2010
Given certificate for tomorrow
review as needed”.
(c)    An entry dated 18 January 2018, Dr Susan Yeung noted: “Has been busy with work, 12 hour days.”
(d)    An entry dated 16 February 2018, Dr Alice Muspratt noted: “Stress – working long hours and stress at home”.
(e)    An entry dated 31 May 2018, Dr Sindhu Revanna noted:
“Presented c/o stress from work related issues
He reports he is faced with lateral bullying from his senior colleague
He has put a formal complaint about the incident and has spoken to his immediate acting supervisor as well
Reports he has not been sleeping well since Tuesday/ he has become worried/ and says it has affected him emotionally as well as spiritually
…
Management
Dallas will access workplace counselling
If he will return if decide to see the psychologist here
Actions:
Letter Created - re. AMS - Medical Certificate to
Letter Printed - re. AMS - Medical Certificate to”
(f)    An entry dated 13 June 2018, Dr Muspratt noted:
History:
significant stress related to work
current dispute with colleague
wider concerns re running of organisation and impacts upon his community
feels isolated and loss of trust
….
Reason for contact:
Anxiety/Depression”
(g)    An entry dated 20 August 2018, Dr Subashi Rallage noted:
“2. stress at work
bullied at work
a head teacher at TAFE- aboriginal studies
has officially complained to employer
under investigation - still ongoing
states bullying is also ongoing at work
continued to work
feels stressful
difficulty coping
sleeping difficulty
no suicidal thoughts
lives with twin sister
good support from her
referred to Psychologist through GPMHTP in June
contacted him, busy couldn't get into see
requests referral to a different Psychologist”
(h)    An entry dated 28 August 2018, Dr Victoria Snaidr noted:
“3. stress at work
seeing counsellor today
reporting bullying and harrassment from work colleague
formal complaint made in May, still no resolvement [sic]”
(i)    An entry dated 3 September 2018, Dr Ruth Noel noted:
“also some issues at work
reporting bullying and harassment from work colleague
formal complaint made in May, still no resolvement [sic]
has had a GPMHP completed and is seeing a psychologist in Glebe”
(j)    An entry dated 30 October 2018 (ARD 187) Dr Adam Gaudry noted that the applicant had a “headache for 3 days … worked 13 hours yesterday stressed at work.”
(k)    An entry dated 16 November 2018, Dr Sally Roberts noted:
“47 y/o M attends for certificate
Head teacher at Sydney TAFE
working there 6 years
workplace dispute
not on workcover
workplace wanting a ? mediation meeting on Monday
normally attends meetings about dispute with representative from teacher's union
has contacted teachers federation rep - not available until Wednesday
stressed +++
tired and run down
had enough of current workplace
states working 12+ hour days at times
efforts not recognised
feeling generally flat
…
Plan
- listening provided ++
- med cert given”
(l)    An entry dated 27 December 2018, Dr Iyngaranathan Selvaratnam noted:
“Changes at Work
- spoken to supervisor
- less hours
- participating in Indigenous police program > physical training.
2. Mental Health
- had 6 counselling sessions
- did not gel with counsellor - had to culturally educate him
- will consider EAP
- nephew recently tried to commit suicide significantly impacting him”.
(m)     An entry dated 18 September 2019, Dr Muspratt noted “ongoing stress due to work and poor work life balance”. She noted that he was drinking when under pressure.
(n)    An entry dated 25 September 2019, Dr Subashi Rallage noted: “Stress at work – discussed stress management strategies”.
(o)    An entry dated 3 March 2021, Dr Muspratt noted:
“stress at work
spending 10- 12 hrs at work
over stretched at work
trying to get healthy and walking
received phone call from boss with regards to complaint at work
wasn't given any detail and request to meet today or friday [sic]
then received email which caused distress
waited at work but felt anxious +++
left at 3pm
spoke to union and TAFE organisation
will have them for support but not available till next week
unable to switch off
not sleeping
will arrange psychologist through work
union rep advice- no agenda provided/ no information re complaint
also wording of email
felt unsafe at work yesterday- not knowing nature of complaint/ who was involved
at present would like to take sick leave- and re review next week”
In a referral to Dr Paul Pusey, psychologist, dated 22 March 2021, Dr Kirsty Jambagi noted that the applicant was the victim of “workplace bullying, lateral violence”.
In a State Insurance Regulatory Authority Certificate of Capacity dated December 2021, Dr Jambagi certified the applicant as having no capacity for any work from 3 December 2021 to 3 January 2022. She made a diagnosis of extreme anxiety and depression secondary to workplace bullying and lateral violence from co-workers. She wrote:
“Dallas reports workplace bullying, experienced excessive workload for many years which is going above and beyond his designated work role and ‘lateral violence’ from co-workers which has been going on for some time, to the point he feels unsafe returning to work. Dallas feels psychologically traumatised as a result”.

Discussion

Section 11A defence

The issue to be determined is whether the actions taken by the respondent in respect to discipline were reasonable in all the circumstances of the applicant’s employment.
There was no issue that the applicant suffered injury, that is, a major depressive disorder, this being a recognised psychiatric condition. In making this finding I have relied on the evidence of Dr Adams and Dr Angus-Leppen. Dr Dinnen diagnosed an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed moods, which was also a recognised psychiatric condition.
The respondent contended that the applicant’s injury was caused by reasonable action taken by the respondent with respect to discipline.
Section 11A (1) provides:
“No compensation is payable under this Act in respect of an injury that is a psychological injury if the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by, or on behalf of the employer with respect to transfer, demotion, promotion, performance appraisal, discipline, retrenchment or dismissal of workers or provision of employment benefits to workers.”
The onus of proof of establishing any of the matters under s 11A falls upon the employer: Department of Education & Training v Sinclair [2004] NSWWCCPD 90 at [23] and Pirie v Franklins Ltd (2001) NSWCCR 346. Basten JA stated in Jeffery v Lintipal Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 138] at [33] that it is not necessary for the claimant to succeed that the action be demonstrated to be “unreasonable” but rather that the section provides that compensation will not be payable if the action were “reasonable”.
The test of reasonableness is an objective one. In Commissioner of Police v Minehan [2003] NSWCA 239 Foster AJA (Sheller and Santow JJA agreeing) cited with approval a passage from an unreported decision of Geraghty J in Irwin v Director-General of School Education (unreported 18 June 1998):
“The question of reasonableness is one of fact, weighing all the relevant factors. The test is less demanding than the test of necessity, but more demanding than a test of convenience. The test of ‘reasonableness’ is objective, and must weigh the rights of employees against the objective of the employer. Whether an action is reasonable should be attended, in all the circumstances, by a question of fairness”.
In State Transit Authority of NSW v Fritzi Chemler [2007] NSWCA 249; (2007) 5 DDCR 286 (Chemler) Spigelman CJ said a perception of real events, which are not external events, can satisfy the test of injury. Chemler also made it clear the eggshell skull rule applies in a general sense and in psychiatric cases, in particular, with Spigelman CJ using the phrase “’eggshell psyche’ principle”.
Handley ADP in Ponnan v George Weston Foods Ltd [2007] NSWWCCPD 92 considered the proper construction of s 11A with particular attention given to the meaning of the word “predominantly”. Handley ADP stated that the word “predominantly” meant “mainly or principally caused”.
In Smith v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW [2008] NSWWCCPD 130 (Smith) the arbitrator made a finding that the subject injury was “wholly” or “predominantly” caused by action taken by the respondent employer. Snell ADP considered the meaning of the term “predominantly” as it appears in s 11A(1) and said at [31]:
“I accept ‘mainly or principally caused’ is the meaning that should be ascribed to the word ‘predominantly’ in section 11A(1). The test on causation to be applied, as was observed in Temelkov, is the test enunciated in Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates.”
Snell ADP also said at [62] that the concepts “wholly” and “predominantly” were different concepts and if such findings were to be made “it needed to be one or the other”.
In Hamad v Q Catering Ltd [2017] NSWWCCPD 6, Snell DP found that in many cases there will need to be medical evidence to establish that the employer’s action was the “whole or predominant cause” of the injury:
“The extent to which aspects of the appellant’s history contributed to causing the psychological injury was not, in the circumstances, something which could be decided in the absence of medical evidence. There may be cases in which causation of a psychological injury can be established without specific medical evidence, for example where there is a single instance of major psychological trauma, with no other competing factors. The need for medical evidence dealing with the causation issue in s 11A(1) of the 1987 Act, will depend on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. In the current case, as in most, there are a number of potentially causative factors raised in the appellant’s statement and the medical histories. Proof of whether those factors, which potentially provide a defence under s 11A(1), were the whole or predominant cause of the psychological injury, required medical evidence on that topic. The extent of any causal contribution, from matters not constituting actions or proposed actions by the respondent with respect to discipline, could not be resolved on the basis of the Arbitrator’s common knowledge and experience.”
The respondent was required to establish that the action with respect to discipline was the whole or predominant cause of the applicant’s psychological injury and that the actions with respect to discipline were reasonable.
The first matter to be determined was whether the action with respect to discipline was the whole or predominant cause of the applicant’s psychological injury.
In the applicant‘s statements, dated 11 June 2021 and 22 October 2023, he gave evidence, which I accept, about a number of incidents at work, his workload and other issues. The applicant raised the following matters:
(a)    The first matter that the applicant raised was his workload in 2018. He stated that by 2018 he found himself in a position where he was experiencing great inequality as his specialist Aboriginal identified role was being called upon to provide ever increasing input across TAFE NSW. He stated that his working hours continued to increase and he began to feel utter exhaustion. He said that he tried to change the situation but his feedback was totally ignored. The applicant described being highly anxious about his workload and having increasing concerns about the workload and the expectations that were placed upon him. He described working very long hours and on many occasions being onsite at work until 10.00pm in an attempt to meet the additional workload. He also perceived that he was not being treated equally with the other head teachers. The applicant stated that the EORA Teaching Section was awarded a Gili Award in the category of Aboriginal Team of the year for their contributions in 2019 but this success came at an increasing workload which had been to the detriment of his health and wellbeing. He stated that he found himself constantly anxious thinking about what he had to do, how many tasks he was juggling at the same time, and how he would manage. He said that he was not sleeping, going to bed exhausted, and waking up exhausted. The applicant said that his workload continued to escalate and became increasingly toxic to his health and well-being. The applicant estimated that he worked an additional 93 days in 2019 and 83 days in 2020.
(b)    The second matter that the applicant raised in his statements was isolation. He described attending a meeting at the Ultimo campus where he was placed at a table away from others and made to feel isolated, segregated, and humiliated. He said that these types of situations were not isolated events.
(c) The third matter was an ongoing issue in the Sydney region in the new One TAFE structure about how “CSO4444E” funds were used to provide classroom support and mentoring to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. He referred to an email from Ms Alison Armstrong on 15 September 2020 in which she noted that in the absence of an official process “this workload has fallen on Dallas and his team at EORA” and that no one else was willing to undertake his task.
(d)    The fourth matter that the applicant raised was lateral violence. He stated that he attended a meeting in June 2019 at Ultimo in which he was accused by Ms Kylie-Anne Watts of questioning her Aboriginality which he denied. The applicant described leaving the meeting in tears. He wrote:
“I felt devastated by the antagonism I experienced in the meeting and could not stop crying. This situation was yet another example of the constant undermining and conflict I have been experiencing…The situation was very hurtful as it was an attack coming from one of my own mob (another Aboriginal person)”.
(e)    The fifth matter was the complaint made against him on 2 March 2021. He stated that on 2 March 2021 he received the devastating news that allegations and complaints were made against him. He said that he was shocked to see the complaints were centred on hearsay and statements indicating that he had ignored staff or other similar types of statements. He wrote: “I was absolutely gutted that this complaint had been made against me, after all I had done in contributing to build EORA to become such a leading place of learning and college with my amazing team”. He said that he felt he was the target of vindictive harassment. He described feeling sickened and unable to cope and left work and went home in tears.
The applicant stated that he was called to a meeting without any information about the complaints and so was unable to prepare. He said that he then contacted his union and was advised to request an agenda and copy of the complaints. He said that when he received the complaints he realised it was a witch hunt and it was three other Aboriginal employees who had targeted him and were out to get him. He noticed that some of the complaints happened three years previously. He said that the first time he became aware of the complaints was when he received a letter advising that a lawyer had been employed to investigate. The applicant noted that the opening statement in the TAFE letter he received on 3 March 2012 read “the allegations are currently negatively impacting the collegiality and working environment of EORA College.” The applicant stated that the complainants were not staff members at EORA college but Aboriginal staff that were located at other campuses. The applicant stated that the complaints refer to “others” though those people were never identified or at least their identity was not made known to the applicant and in the circumstances he was unable to respond to the allegations.
Ms Armstrong gave evidence confirming that the applicant was quite upset and very shocked that complaints were made against him, saying that he worked very hard. Ms Armstrong said that she assured the applicant that the complaint had not come from her and was not about his work as line manager.
Ms Armstrong confirmed that the applicant often complained of being overworked, a situation he told her had been the case for some time before Miss Armstrong became his line manager. She said that whilst steps were taken to hire another fulltime temporary teacher the additional teacher had not yet been employed at the time when the applicant went off work. Ms Armstrong also confirmed that the applicant told her that he was experiencing lateral violence from other Aboriginal people in the organisation.
The respondent relied on the medical reports of Dr Adams. In a report dated 30 August 2021, Dr Adams, identified the applicant as working excessive hours and feeling pressured. She considered that this situation most likely affected his psychological, physical, and emotional capacity to deal with additional stress. Dr Adams accepted that the applicant had been exposed to lateral violence particularly with respect to the allegations made by the other employees. She identified other causative factors as the failure of the respondent to address the applicant’s concerns, having to be off work because of the investigation and that the information had not stayed confidential which affected his self esteem and caused concern about his reputation within the aboriginal community. Dr Adams thought that the applicant had developed a major depressive illness as a result of those accumulated stressors.
When asked about causation Dr Adams considered “the work related incidents as described by Mr Wellington caused the injury claim.” Dr Adams further explained “I consider Mr Wellington’s injury related to the nature of the work performed and the particular task of that work, in particular, his exposure to injury as the only Aboriginal head teacher.” That comment indicated that the predominant cause of the injury was the workload and lateral violence which arose out of the applicant’s role as the only Aboriginal head teacher.
Dr Adams also considered the causation of the earlier factors in 2018. She thought that at that time the applicant had the capacity to deal with the incidents without developing a major depression, however, it meant that the applicant was in an already vulnerable state but the way the allegation was made was the final nail in the coffin.

Dr Adams further went on to say that the workload had led to a situation of burn out in that he had lost his normal cognitive, physical, and emotional capacity to deal with stress. She concluded that there was one psychological injury contributed to by multiple different causes from the workplace.
Dr Adams was asked to express an opinion concerning the main contributing factor and said:
“I consider the predominate cause, trigger of the applicant’s condition is the performance appraisal, disciplinary matters raised with the worker and the contents of these and the way it was raised in the context of previous excessive workload and bullying and harassment and exclusion.”
Dr Adams did not really identify the disciplinary matters themselves as being the whole or predominant cause. Dr Adams also included the previous excessive workload and bullying and harassment exclusion as being part of the main causative factors because they created the context which was essential to the development of the injury.
The applicant relied on the report of Dr Dinnen. In his report dated 30 November 2022, Dr Dinnen recounted a history consistent with what appears in the applicant’s statement. Dr Dinnen noted that the applicant felt that the respondent was not seriously dealing with the issues he had experienced in the workplace of lateral violence which had come from other Aboriginal staff. The applicant told Dr Dinnen that this had taken a toll on him and his mental health.
The applicant told Dr Dinnen about the investigation, which had arisen from the complaints lodged by three colleagues from other parts of the organisation. The applicant told Dr Dinnen that his initial reaction to the complaint was that he “went into shock”. The applicant told Dr Dinnen that there had been the usual work pressures before these events “but he had not had any problems dealing with them.” The applicant told Dr Dinnen that he would work 14 hour days.
Dr Dinnen diagnosed an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed moods. His opinion was that the condition was a result of workplace conflicts as described by the patient at interview and recorded in the documentation.
I accept that Dr Dinnen clearly saw the condition as being the consequence of all of the various matters which had occurred at work. Although Dr Dinnen was not asked to express an opinion on whether any of the matters were the whole or predominant cause of the condition, it was apparent from his history and comments that he did not see any individual matter as being the predominant cause.
The applicant also relied on the report of the treating psychiatrist, Dr Angus-Leppan. In a report dated 1 June 2022, Dr Angus-Leppan, treating psychiatrist, records a history of conflict in the workplace, complaints made against the applicant by co-workers, and perceptions of bullying and lateral violence. He noted that as a consequence of complaints made the applicant had been put on leave pending enquiry. Dr Angus-Leppan made a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. He thought that the cause of the applicant’s injury was the work environment, conflict, and process of enquiry.
The applicant referred to the notes and records of the Aboriginal Medical Service in some detail. clinical notes of the Aboriginal Medical Service contained multiple entries where reference was made to stress, excessive workload and problems at work from 2017 on. In particular:
(a)    on 20 September 2017, Dr Magee noted that the applicant had been having issues with bullying from a supervisor and in a meeting on that day this person verbally attacked the applicant which he found very distressing and brought him to tears. Dr Magee provided the applicant with a medical certificate for the next day.
(b)    On 18 January 2018, Dr Susan Yeung noted that the applicant had been busy at work with 12 hour days.
(c)    On16 February 2018, Dr Muspratt noted the applicant complained of stress and was working long hours.
(d)    On 31 May 2018, Dr Revanna noted the applicant complained of stress from work related issues and reported facing lateral bullying from his senior colleague. The applicant said that he made a formal complaint about the incident and has spoken to his immediate acting supervisor as well. She noted that he was accessing workplace counselling. Dr Ravenna issued a medical certificate.
(e)    On 13 June 2018, Dr Muspratt noted the applicant had significant stress related to work and a current dispute with a colleague as well as wider concerns about the running of the organisation and impacts upon his community. She noted that he felt isolated and a loss of trust. She reported that the reason for contact was anxiety/depression.
(f)    On 20 August 2018, Dr Rallage noted the applicant complained of stress and bullying at work with the investigation ongoing. He noted that the applicant stated that the bullying was also ongoing at work. Dr Rallage reported that the applicant felt “stressful”, had difficulty coping, difficulty sleeping and could not get in to see the psychologist he was referred to in June and needed another referral.
(g)    On 28 August 2018, Dr Snaidr noted there was stress at work and the applicant was seeing a counsellor that day. She reported that the applicant had reporting bullying and harassment from a work colleague and made a formal complaint in May, but there was still no resolution.
(h)    On 3 September 2018, Dr Noel noted there were issues at work and the complaint made in May of bullying and harassment had still to be resolved. She reported that the applicant was seeing a psychologist in Glebe.
(i)    On 30 October 2018, Dr Gaudry noted that the applicant had worked 13 hours yesterday and was stressed at work.
(j)    On 16 November 2018, Dr Roberts noted that the applicant had attended to get a medical certificate. Dr Roberts noted that there was a workplace dispute and the applicant had been requested to attend a mediation on Monday but could not get a representative from the teachers’ union until Wednesday, Dr Roberts reported that the applicant was “stressed +++”, tired and run down, worked 12 hours a day at times, felt his efforts were not recognised and was generally feeling “flat”. Dr Roberts provided the applicant with a medical certificate.
(k)    On 27 December 2018, Dr Selvaratnam noted that the applicant had six counselling sessions but did not “gel” with the counsellor and would consider “EAP”.
(l)    On 18 September 2019, Dr Muspratt noted the applicant complained of ongoing stress due to work and poor work life balance.
(m)     On 25 September 2019, Dr Rallage noted the applicant had stress at work and they discussed stress management strategies.
(n)    On 3 March 2021, Dr Muspratt noted the applicant had stress at work, was spending 10-12 hours at work, was over stretched at work and had received phone call from his boss with regard to a complaint at work but wasn’t given any details. Dr Muspratt noted that the applicant had received an email which caused him distress and he felt anxious and left work at 3pm. He noted that the applicant said he would arrange a psychologist through work. The applicant said that he felt unsafe a t work not knowing the nature of the complaint and who was involved and would take sick leave and review the situation in a week.
In a referral to Dr Pusey, psychologist, on 22 March 2021, Dr Jambagi noted that the applicant was the victim of “workplace bullying, lateral violence”.
In a State Insurance Regulatory Authority Certificate of Capacity dated December 2021, Dr Jambagi made a diagnosis of extreme anxiety and depression secondary to work place bullying and lateral violence from co-workers. She noted that the applicant had reported workplace bullying, experienced excessive workload for many years which was going above and beyond his designated work role and was subjected to "lateral violence" from co-workers which has been going on for some time, to the point he felt unsafe returning to work.
No doctor, apart from perhaps Dr Adams, supported the submissions made by the respondent that the whole or predominant cause of the applicant’s psychological injury was the events on 2 March 2021 and 3 March 2021 when the applicant was informed about the complaints made against him and advised that there would be an investigation. Dr Dinnen expressed the opinion that workplace conflicts were the causative workplace stressors. Dr Angus-Leppan expressed the opinion that work environment, conflict, and process of enquiry were the causative workplace stressors. Dr Jamagi expressed the opinion that workplace bullying, excessive workload and lateral violence were the causative workplace stressors.
I considered it significant that Dr Adam’s opinion was qualified. In her report of 30 August 2021, she identified the applicant as working excessive hours, feeling pressured, being exposed to lateral violence. She also addressed the events on 2 March 2021 and 3 March 2021 and the investigation process. Dr Adams formed the view that the applicant had developed a major depressive illness as a result of those accumulated stressors. When addressing causation, she considered that the applicant’s injury related to the nature of the work performed and the particular task of that work, in particular, his exposure to injury as the only Aboriginal head teacher. That comment would indicate that the applicant’s role as the only Aboriginal head teacher was a significant factor in terms of causation.
Dr Adams expressed the view that the workload had led to a situation of burn out in that the applicant had lost his normal cognitive, physical, and emotional capacity to deal with stress. She concluded there was one psychological injury contributed to by multiple different causes from the workplace.
Although Dr Adams went on to say that she considered that the predominate cause, trigger of the applicant’s condition was the performance appraisal, disciplinary matters raised with the worker and the contents of these and the way it was raised in the context of previous excessive workload and bullying and harassment and exclusion, her opinion must be considered in the light of her report as a whole. She did not explicitly identify the disciplinary matters themselves as being the whole or predominant cause of the injury. She included the previous excessive workload and bullying and harassment exclusion as being part of the main causative factors because they create the context which was essential to the development of the injury.
Dr Angus-Leppan made a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. He considered that the cause of the applicant’s injury was the work environment, conflict, and process of enquiry. The combination of the history and the opinion was inconsistent with the view that the enquiry was the whole or predominant cause of the condition.
It was significant, in my view, that Dr Adams was not provided with the clinical notes and records of the Aboriginal Medical Service. Those records showed that the applicant made numerous complaints to his treating doctors in 2017, 2018 and 2019 in relation to stress at work, excessive workload, bullying, lateral violence. The records showed that the applicant was referred to a psychologist in 2018. The applicant was also provided with medical certificates from which I would infer that he was incapacitated for work because of those psychological problems for short periods.
The respondent argued that the other matters raised by the applicant such as workload and experiencing lateral violence were nowhere near as influential in terms of causation of injury as the complaint that was made against him on 2 March 2021 which caused him to leave work on that day. However, the clinical notes and records of the Aboriginal Medical Service revealed that the applicant was referred to a psychologist in 2018 and medical certificates were issued on 20 September 2017, 31 May 2018 and 16 November 2018. Those incidents clearly had a considerable impact in terms of causation as they caused incapacity and a need for psychological treatment. Further, Dr Magee noted on 20 September 2017 that the applicant left a meeting in tears. The applicant also stated that in June 2019 he left another meeting in tears when he was accused by Kylie-Anne Watts of questioning her Aboriginality. The applicant stated that he felt devastated by the antagonism he experienced in the meeting and could not stop crying. The fact that the applicant left those meetings in tears was evidence that he had been seriously affected by the events on those occasions.
The respondent’s case was limited to the submission that the whole or predominant cause of the applicant’s injury was the events relating to the investigation of the complaints made against him on 2 and 3 March 2021. I accept that the events on 2 and 2 March 2021 could be described as action taken by the respondent in respect of discipline. Whether such action was reasonable is another matter.
However, I am satisfied that the weight of the medical evidence does not support a finding that the events on 2 and 3 March 2021 were the whole or predominant cause of the psychological injury, and the s 11A defence must fail. I am satisfied that there were a number of causative factors in this case and the medical evidence did not establish that the events on 2 and 3 March 2021 were the whole or predominant cause of the psychological injury.
I find that the psychological injury sustained by the applicant was sustained as a result of the incidents at work between 2017 and 3 March 2021 including stress caused by workload, excessive workload, bullying, and lateral violence. I am not satisfied that the events on 2 and 3 March 2021 were the whole or predominant cause of the psychological injury. Further, I am satisfied that the incidents at work between 2017 and 3 March 2021 including stress caused by workload, excessive workload, bullying, and lateral violence were significant causative factors in the applicant’s psychological injury.
Because of the findings made above, it is not necessary for me to decide whether the action of the respondent on 31 January 2023 were reasonable. The s 11A defence was not made out.

Capacity

The parties agreed that the PIAWE were $2,374.86 and indexed to $2,418.55 on 1 April 2022.
The applicant made a claim for weekly benefits for the period 8 March 2022 to 8 August 2022 on the basis that he had no capacity for work.
The applicant was certified as having no capacity for work from 8 March 2022 to 17 June 2022.
The respondent accepted that the applicant was totally incapacitated for employment between 8 March 2022 to 31 March 2022 and 29 April 2022 and 17 June 2022. The respondent submitted that the applicant was partially incapacitated for employment from 1 April 2022 to 28 April 2022 and from 18 June 2022 to 15 July 2022 and probably partially incapacitated for work from 16 July 22 to 8 August 2022.
It appeared that some payment was made by the respondent to the applicant in April 2022. A Pay Advice from the respondent showed that the applicant was paid $1,881.64 as “fortnightly earnings” for the period 1 April 2022 to 14 April 2022. However, the same Pay Advice showed that the applicant was on sick leave without pay from 1 April 2022 to 14 April 2022. A Pay Advice from the respondent showed that the applicant was paid $470.41 as “fortnightly earnings” for the period 15 April 2022 to 28 April 2022. Again, the same Pay Advice showed that the applicant was on sick leave without pay from 15 April 2022 to 25 April 2022. It appears that the applicant had been on sick leave without pay until 14 April 2022 immediately before these payments were made. It appears that the parties do not know what these payments relate to, but it was clear that the applicant did not work during those periods.
The applicant gave evidence that he was certified as unfit to work on 3 March 2021 and then attempted to return to work on 22 March 2021 but did not feel safe in the workplace and left work to seek medical attention. The applicant was certified as unfit to work from 24 March 2021 to 25 April 2021. He stated that he was suspended on full pay from March 2021 until March 2022. In the Reply to Particulars dated 23 November 2023, the applicant stated that he did not work in any capacity in the period March 2022 to August 2022. The applicant in his statement dated 22 October 2023 said that he commenced employment elsewhere in August 2022.
In the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) Certificate of Capacity dated 20 May 2022, Dr Hariska Nagahawatte certified the applicant as having no current work capacity for the period 20 May 2022 to 17 June 2022, commenting:
“It is in the best interest of Mr Wellington’s health and wellbeing to receive the investigation report findings and outcomes prior to his Return To Work by post and hard copy to his address. This will enable Mr Wellington to organise to open and read the documents with support from his treating specialists, including his Psychologist and Counsellor. This certificate verifies that Mr Wellington is fit to receive the
report in this manner. ln doing so, and after consideration of the investigation report findings and outcomes, Mr Wellington will discuss with his doctor his return to work”.
In the SIRA Certificate of Capacity dated 17 June 2022, Dr Nagahawatte certified the applicant as having capacity for some type of work the period 20 June 2022 to 15 July 2022 for 7.5 hours a day, two days a week. Dr Nagahawatte commented:
“It is in the best interest of Mr Wellington’s health and wellbeing to receive the investigation report findings and outcomes prior to his Return To Work by post and hard copy to his address. This will enable Mr Wellington to organise to open and read the documents with support from his treating specialists, including his Psychologist and Counsellor. This certificate verifies that Mr Wellington is fit to receive the report in this manner. ln doing so, and after consideration of the investigation report findings and outcomes, Mr Wellington will discuss with his doctor his return to work.
17/6/2022: Mr Wellington feels he has capacity for some type of work subjected tp the following:
1. The work place provides Mr Wellington a culturally safe environment to work in.
2. Safe workload.
3. A report of the investigation be provided to Mr Wellington.”
It appears that as at 17 June 2022, the report of the investigation still had not been provided to the applicant. The Certificate of Capacity dated 17 June 2022 was issued subject to the report being provided to the applicant in the manner described and this being discussed by the applicant and his doctor. The report of the investigation was sent to the applicant on 6 July 2022.
The applicant submitted that the change in the applicant’s capacity for work did not therefore occur until 6 July 2022. The applicant argued that any capacity for work after 6 July 2022 was theoretical only and he was just certified fit to work 15 hours a week in suitable employment. The applicant argued that taking into account the hours and restrictions in terms of workplace, the applicant really had no capacity for employment until 8 August 2022. In the alternative, the applicant submitted that he has some capacity for work after 6 July 2022 and was able to earn about $300 per week in some casual position paying $20 per hour.
The respondent submitted that the applicant was earning $588.01 per week for the period 1 April 2022 to 28 April 2022 and was able to earn $954.69 per week for the period 18 June 2022 to 8 August 2022 on the basis that he worked 15 hours a week at a rate of $63.64 per hour. This rate of $63.64 per hour was based on the applicant’s PIAWE and assumed that he would be able to obtain part time or casual employment paying the same rates that he was paid as a Head Teacher with the respondent.
I do not accept that the earnings in the period 1 April 2022 to 28 April 2022 were payments for work performed by the applicant in that period. The pay slips also showed that the applicant was on unpaid sick leave. It may be that the respondent made some payments in error. In my view the appropriate way to address for the respondent, if the payment was made in error, to request that the applicant repay those amounts. The applicant’s solicitor in a letter dated 23 November 2023 suggested that the payments may be an error by the respondent as the applicant did not work through this period. She wrote: “The error may have been adjusted in later payslips. Our client has advised that he cannot produce a later payslip and we would appreciate it if you could request them from your client”. It appears that the respondent did not respond to this request.

It follows that the applicant had no current capacity for employment as a result of his compensable psychological injury from 8 March 2022 to 6 July 2022, that being the date that the investigation report was provided to the applicant and his doctor.
I am satisfied that the applicant is entitled to weekly compensation in accordance with s 37(1) of the 1987 Act.
The applicant’s PIAWE rate was agreed between the parties at $2,374.86. The parties agreed that PIAWE was indexed to $2,418.55 on 1 April 2022.The 80% rate of $2,374.86 was $1,899.89 and the 80% rate of $2,418.55 was $1,934.84.
In respect of the period 7 July 2022 to 8 August 2022, I am satisfied that the applicant had some capacity for work and was able to work 15 hours a week in some casual employment. I do not accept that the applicant would have been able to obtain casual part – time work earning the same rates as he was paid by the respondent. On balance I consider that the applicant would have been able to earn $25 per hour or $375 per week. Therefore the applicant was entitled to weekly payments of $1,559.84 for the period 7 July 2022 to 8 August 2022.
There will be an award in the applicant’s favour in respect of the claim for weekly compensation.

Section 60 expenses

In view of the findings made above, a general order will be made for s 60 expenses.

Summary

Respondent to pay the applicant weekly compensation as follows:
(a) $1,899.89 per week from 8 March 2022 to 31 March 2022 pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act;
(b) $1,934.84 per week from 1 April 2022 to 6 July 2022 pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act, and
(c) $1,559.84 per week from 7 July 2022 to 8 August 2022 pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act.
Respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary s 60 expenses on production of accounts, receipts and /or Medicare Notice of Charge.

[2024] NSWPIC 106

7 March 2024