Wright v MLC Wealth Limited
[2022] NSWPIC 428
•1 August 2022
| DECISION OF PRESIDENT’S DELEGATE | |
CITATION: | Wright v MLC Wealth Limited [2022] NSWPIC 428 |
| APPLICANT: | Erika Wright |
| RESPONDENT: | MLC Wealth Limited |
| PRESIDENT’S DELEGATE: | Parnel McAdam |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 1 August 2022 |
| CATCHWORDS: | Work capacity dispute; consideration of definition of suitable employment in section 32A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; worker suffered a psychological injury due to overwork and bullying/harassment; consideration of medical information; downgrade in capacity; whether downgrade due to work injury or relationship issues; held downgrade connected to employment, work had no capacity for suitable employment; Held — award of weekly payments made. |
| ORDERS MADE: | The President directs: 1. The respondent is pay the applicant weekly compensation pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 at the rate of $1,456 per week, to be indexed from time to time in accordance with the legislation. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
Ms Wright (the applicant) was employed by MLC Wealth Limited (the respondent) as a financial adviser. She commenced work with the respondent in April 2019 as an associate financial planner and was eventually promoted to her pre-injury role. As she says in her statement, “there is a long story behind that”.
As with many disputes in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission), there is a long story behind Ms Wright suffering a psychological injury and the actions of her employer before and after that injury, and the insurer in managing that injury. Ms Wright has provided an extensive statement of some 55 pages setting out that history, which is supported by a witness statement provided by her husband.
In summary, Ms Wright was exposed to significant work pressure, was overworked, and felt unsupported by her manager and her employer. An application for promotion was handled in an unusual and probably inappropriate way. Ms Wright made numerous complaints about the work environment to management that did not seem to be well received or appropriately actioned. She alleges bullying and harassment at the hands of her manager, which ultimately led to an unsuccessful mediation.
As a result of the workplace issues, Ms Wright suffered a psychological injury that has, at times, resulted in catastrophic breakdowns in her mental state and her personal life.
The respondent accepted liability for the work related injury suffered. Weekly payments have continued since the injury occurred, but on 6 May 2022, the respondent issued a decision that would reduce the amount of benefits from 26 July 2022. The applicant commenced the present proceedings in the Commission, challenging that determination.
Issues in dispute
The issue in dispute in this matter concerns the definition of suitable employment in s 32A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). The applicant’s entitlement to weekly compensation arises under s 37 of the 1987 Act. The question is whether and to what extent Ms Wright is capable of work in suitable employment in accordance with that definition.
The legislation
As this dispute concerns suitable employment, I must consider the definition in s 32A of the 1987 Act:
“suitable employment, in relation to a worker, means employment in work for which the worker is currently suited:
(a) having regard to:
(i) the nature of the worker’s incapacity and the details provided in medical information including, but not limited to, any certificate of capacity supplied by the worker (under section 44B), and
(ii)the worker’s age, education, skills and work experience, and
(iii) any plan or document prepared as part of the return to work planning process, including an injury management plan under Chapter 3 of the 1998 Act, and
(iv) any occupational rehabilitation services that are being, or have been, provided to or for the worker, and
(v) such other matters as the Workers Compensation Guidelines may specify, and
(b) regardless of:
(i) whether the work or the employment is available, and
(ii) whether the work or the employment is of a type or nature that is generally available in the employment market, and
(iii) the nature of the worker’s pre-injury employment, and
(iv) the worker’s place of residence.”
Section 37 of the 1987 Act provides:
“(1) The weekly payment of compensation to which an injured worker who has no current work capacity is entitled during the second entitlement period is to be at the rate of 80% of the worker’s pre-injury average weekly earnings.
(2) The weekly payment of compensation to which an injured worker who has current work capacity and has returned to work for not less than 15 hours per week is entitled during the second entitlement period is to be at the lesser of the following rates—
(a) 95% of the worker’s pre-injury average weekly earnings, less the worker’s current weekly earnings,
(b) the maximum weekly compensation amount, less the worker’s current weekly earnings.
(3) The weekly payment of compensation to which an injured worker who has current work capacity and has returned to work for less than 15 hours per week (or who has not returned to work) is entitled during the second entitlement period is to be at the lesser of the following rates—
(a) 80% of the worker’s pre-injury average weekly earnings, less the worker’s current weekly earnings,
(b) the maximum weekly compensation amount, less the worker’s current weekly earnings.”
Section 33 of the 1987 Act provides:
“If total or partial incapacity for work results from an injury, the compensation payable by the employer under this Act to the injured worker shall include a weekly payment during the incapacity.”
I am determining this dispute exercising powers of the President delegated to me. Section 297(1) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) provides:
“When a dispute to which this Part applies concerns weekly payments of compensation or medical expenses compensation, the President can direct the person on whom the claim is made to pay the compensation concerned. Such a direction is referred to in this Part as an interim payment direction.”
The evidence
I have reviewed all of the evidenced lodged by the parties attached to the Application and Reply. The key documents relevant to the determination of the issues in dispute are discussed below.
The dispute notice
The dispute notice issued 6 May 2022 sets out the basis for the respondent’s decision that Ms Wright is capable of working for 5 hours per day, 3 days per week, in suitable employment as a finance manager, private tutor, or financial investment adviser. Finance manager was said to be “the most suitable employment option”, with an earning capacity of $375 per week. This would reduce Ms Wright’s payment to $1,081 per week. The dispute noticed relied on a vocational assessment report, a certificate of capacity, a job seeking update and the treating doctor signoff, all of which will be discussed below.
Vocational assessment report
This report is dated 28 March 2022. At the time of the assessment, Ms Wright was certified with capacity for 5 hours per day, 3 days per week, with the restriction “not under her previous manager (Kerry Little)”.
Peculiarly, the vocational assessment report that is before me does not contain the typical analysis of employment history, skills, experience and the like, that one would expect from a vocational assessment report. It does not provide any commentary or analysis of Ms Wright’s psychological injury from a functional capacity perspective. Rather, it is simply a labour market analysis of the roles identified as suitable and the views of a series of employers contacted.
The only analysis of the functional requirements relates to the connection with Ms Wright’s previous manager.
Evidence of Dr Kdade
Dr Kdade is the applicant’s treating doctor. A number of relevant documents provided by Dr Kdade are in evidence, including certificates of capacity, clinical notes, and the suitable employment signoff.
On 16 March 2022, Dr Kdade approves the employment options identified in the labour market analysis as being suitable.
Dr Kdade also provides the following relevant certificates of capacity:
(a) from 16 March 2022 to 14 April 2022, for 5 hours per day, 3 days per week;
(b) from 14 April 2022 to 12 May 2022, for 5 hours per day, 3 days per week;
(c) from 12 May 2022 to 26 May 2022, with no current work capacity (the initial downgrade certificate), and
(d) from 9 June 2022 to 7 July 2022, with no current work capacity (the most recent certificate in evidence).
Dr Kdade’s clinical notes are attached to the Application. The parties made reference to those notes during submissions, and in particular the note on 12 May 2022, which was the date of downgrade of the certificate of capacity, which includes “Jonathan is leaving her and house”.
Dr Kdade also provides a handwritten response to questions about Ms Wright’s return to work on 3 March 2022, in which he provides that she would be able to perform her regular role if she was not under Kerry’s supervision, and that she could “start soon” if there was a safe environment at work to support her. As can be seen, this predates that downgrade in capacity.
Report of A/Prof Michael Robertson
A/Prof Robertson provides an independent medical expert report date 30 June 2022. This report was commissioned by the applicant. A/Prof Robertson takes a history of Ms Wright’s upbringing and previous psychological stressors. Under the heading “evolution of the workplace injury”, he discusses her concern about workload and that she was working up to 70 hours per week. He describes an “acute dissociative episode” that occurred soon after Ms Wright ceased duties. He discusses the vocational assessment, and the reduction in weekly benefits, and provides:
“The process of having to re-engage with the circumstances of the workplace factors associated with the psychological injury including finalising a voluntary redundancy with the employer and ongoing interpersonal stressors in the marriage related to her declined mental state precipitated deterioration in her depressive symptoms to the point that she felt ‘as sick as when (she) went off’”.
Her current status was recorded, including with reference to the criteria under the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scales (PIRS) (although not mentioned by name). Her self-care was self-reported to be “functioning at the level of a child”. For concentration, persistence and pace it was noted that “she is forgetful, inattentive, she is unable to read beyond a few lines before losing focus. She frequently misplaces belongings”. In terms of employability, it is recorded that “she has no current or foreseeable future work capacity arising from the impaired capacities related to her chronic depressive symptoms”.
A diagnosis of recurrent major depressive disorder was provided, with A/Prof Robertson expressing a concern that there may be an underlying bipolar component in her presentation.
In answer a question related to incapacity, A/Prof Robertson provides:
“Ms Wright has not demonstrated capacity for employment since the date of injury. She has suffered a protracted depressive illness that has caused significant impairment of psychosocial and occupational function”.
A/Prof Robertson goes on to opine that the three suggested employment options “are not credible employment options as Ms Wright has a suboptimally treated depressive illness”.
Reports of Theresa Korman
Ms Korman is the applicant’s treating psychologist. A series of reports is attached to the Application.
Relevant to the issues in dispute include on 4 January 2022, when it is recorded that Ms Wright “felt empowered and liberated after speaking her truth at the mediation”. On 31 March 2022, however, it is recorded that “second mediation didn’t go well… offered voluntary redundancy and insurance will help her find alternate work”. Some sleep disturbance and stress was noted at this time.
On 19 April 2022, she reports ongoing issues related to the workplace and bullying by Kerry Little. It was noted that Ms Wright was doing vocational planning and that she “will study to do RTW in insurance broking”.
On 10 May 2022, shortly before the capacity downgrade, it was recorded:
“Feeling flat after final day. Anger and frustration, injustice that nothing has happened to Kerry where Erika has lost her career. Erika feels like he has failed if goes to work in a supermarket. Ha gained 25kgs in weight. Depressed and exhausted has disengaged. Increase in ETOH consumption to help with emotions. Impulse buying lifts mood briefly but then feels guilty.”
On 24 June 2022, the following is recorded:
“Is not handling the situation with insurer reducing payments. Does not have capacity for work at his point. Feeling overwhelmed. This is putting a strain on her marriage and husband wants to leave. Called lifeline for help states should have contacted me earlier. Couldn’t stop screaming like a crazy person and feeling out of control suicidal thoughts. needs to see GP. Will see again next Tuesday. Talk to husband if TOS are strong and persistent
Plan: take time out put things in perspective.”
Case conference records
A series of case conference attendances is also attached to the application. These record what was discussed at the case conferences attend by Ms Wright, Dr Kdade, a rehabilitation provider, and at times a case manager from the insurer and employer representative. These case conference summaries were referred to in conjunction with the clinical notes.
Submissions
Submissions were provided at the teleconference and recorded. The below is a summary of the parties’ submissions. She provides an initial report dated 12 July 2021.
Applicant’s submissions
The applicant commenced submissions with reference to the orders sought, being that Ms Wright has no current work capacity and that weekly benefits would continue at the Pre Injury Average Weekly Earnings (PIAWE) rate as indexed from time to time.
The applicant identified that Ms Wright has a psychological injury and noted that the process had been quite triggering. Ms Wright was said to be quite distressed on the morning of the teleconference. The applicant submits that the nature of the injury means that a person’s condition can fluctuate.
The applicant submits that the injury had placed some real strains on her relationship with her husband as a result of her condition. There were also extra triggers that had occurred, including relating to employment.
The applicant submitted that she was disappointed with the insurer’s attitude towards this matter. They had ignored the volume of evidence provided and had doggedly clung to material that was out of date. The evidence must be considered in circumstances that have changed.
The applicant took me to relevant parts of the evidence, starting with the statement of Ms Wright, with the main focus on the latter part of the statement. Reference was made to the initial certificate of capacity where capacity was changed, as well as the case conference information sheet and clinical notes of that appointment.
Reference was made to the applicant’s statement concerning the organisational restructure of the respondent. It was submitted that these events led to her being completely overwhelmed.
The applicant referred to the report of A/Prof Robertson. I have discussed the content of this report above. The applicant referred to the findings made with reference to the PIRS in the report, and submits that the jobs identified are not just turning up and sitting at a desk doing simple data entry. The jobs require a high degree of concentration, skill and functioning. In terms of her self-care, she is not looking after herself, and she has no interest in interpersonal relationships.
Reference was also made to the entries of the psychologist and attendances in April to June. Ms Korman provides the view that she does not have capacity to work.
Respondent’s submissions
The respondent commenced submissions by “clearing up” a few matters. Firstly, that the comment made about disappointment in the insurer maintaining their position was inappropriate. Secondly that the respondent was relying on out of date evidence is incorrect.
The respondent noted that they could not contest the downgrade, but the respondent’s position is that the downgrade was due to personal circumstances.
The respondent referred to the clinical notes recording attendance on 14 April 2022, which noted that Ms Wright was anxious, but no downgrade was made. The downgrade was recorded on 12 May 2022, which included the fact that Jonathan was leaving. The downgrade thus occurred on the same day as the separation. The respondent also noted that the situation that led to Ms Wright’s unemployment was a voluntary redundancy.
The respondent described the timing of the downgrade as “convenient”, given that Ms Wright had maintained functioning for an extended period prior to 12 May 2022.
The respondent submitted that no weight could be given to the report of A/Prof Robertson, with reference to the question about incapacity, which was answered that Ms Wright has had no capacity since her injury. The respondent submits that this is inconsistent with her certification to date and I should not accept the opinion of A/Prof Robertson.
The respondent disputed the applicant’s submission that everyone agreed with the downgrade at the case conference. It is not for the respondent to disagree with a doctor’s certification and there is really no evidence either way.
The respondent submits that the evidence suggests that the capacity issue has been caused by factors outside of the injury. There is no dispute about the vocational options and the agreement by Dr Kdade that the options are suitable and appropriate.
Applicant’s submissions in response
The applicant first addressed the issue regarding the case conference and whether everyone agreed to the downgrade. The applicant submits that there was a rehab provider and an insurer present during the conference and that the participants don’t sit mutely, they actively participate.
The applicant strongly opposed any suggestion that it is personal circumstances that led to the change in capacity. It is far too difficult to conveniently separate the ongoing effects in a person’s life, and the strain on Ms Wright’s relationship was a direct result of injury and is intense.
The applicant submits that the end of employment being separate is “somewhat of a nonsense”, noting that the redundancy was put on her by the employer, she didn’t particularly want it but wasn’t competent to sit the mandatory exam, and had no option but to take the redundancy.
The applicant submits that there is nothing convenient about her situation. She has a recognised condition, has incapacity, and the change was as a result of significant factors flowing from her injury.
Respondent’s further submissions
Following the conclusion of submissions, the insurer representative sought to have a brief private conference with her lawyer. The respondent’s solicitor then sought leave to provide some further brief submissions on a point. Leave was not opposed, on the basis that the applicant could respond. Leave was granted on the basis that it was an issue that the applicant could meet.
The respondent referred to the case conference note of 12 May 2022. There was a reference to a mental health care plan in that note with treating psychologist “Nicola”. The respondent submits that Nicola is not the treating psychologist for the compensable injury. Further, the downgrade was for the next two weeks and this speaks to personal circumstances.
Applicant in response
The applicant notes that Nicola is a mental health nurse at the GP practice Ms Wright attends. It is not correct and there is no evidence to say that it is not connected at all. The applicant referred to a letter of support on Nicola Rice on p 219 of the Application to show the connection, which includes the address of the GP.
There is no dispute that the initial downgrade was done on a short term basis to be reviewed at a later date, but the certificates are still up to date and show no change.
Discussion and Findings
The definition of suitable employment in s 32A of the 1987 Act contains a list of relevant matters for consideration. The dispute in this case really concerns the medical evidence going to the nature of Ms Wright’s incapacity.
There is no doubt that Ms Wright has an ongoing incapacity due to her psychological injury. The issue for consideration in this matter is whether she has capacity for 15 hours per week in suitable employment, per the section 78 notice, or whether she has no current work capacity, as the applicant submits.
This requires me to consider the “nature of the worker’s incapacity and the details provided in medical information, including, but not limited to, any certificate of capacity supplied by the worker”. With all due respect to the respondent, the “details provided in medical information” is very favourable to the applicant. This is perhaps what the applicant was referring to with the comment made that the insurer’s attitude was disappointing.
In terms of the medical information, which I have discussed above, it is true that at the time the work capacity decision was made, Ms Wright was certified as having some capacity and, based on the clinical notes, appeared to be on an upward trend in terms of her mental health. However, there are certain red flags that suggest that Ms Wright’s condition was fluctuating.
On 16 March 2022, Ms Wright was said to be “doing well” and “happy to work in any of these positions”, being the positions provided in the vocational assessment. However, on 14 April 2022, she was said to be “getting anxious again, poor sleep, tense”, although Dr Kdade provided her with the same certification of 15 hours per week. Notation was made at that time regarding ongoing issues with the respondent, including the redundancy. The case conference notes record that Ms Wright was “feeling more anxious lately due to some information received from EML regarding a partial work capacity decision and waiting on confirmation of a voluntary redundancy”.
On 19 April 2022, Ms Korman provides a report (presumably following a treatment session). This records some contact with her employer, discussing the technical exam as well as the bullying and harassment received from Kerry Little. It is recorded that “talking with Natasha made her feel worse and showed her that they have no interest in changing the culture at work and she does need to leave for her own wellbeing”.
On 10 May 2022, two days before the downgrade, Ms Korman provides another report. I have referenced the content of that report in my summary above. At that time, Ms Wright was “feeling flat”, was “depressed and exhausted has disengaged”. There was commentary around injustice concerning Kerry Little.
At Ms Wright’s next attendance with Dr Kdade, on 12 May 2022, her capacity was reduced. The respondent’s case in large part hinges on what occurred at that case conference. There is a record that “Jonathan is leaving her and house”. In addition, it is recorded that “Kerry her boss is still working in company… she feels she cannot cop and cannot work” [sic]. The case conference notes make mention of a referral via a mental health care plan to Nicola.
Both parties provided submissions concerning two aspects of that case conference. Firstly, I am of the view that the debate concerning whether the insurer present “accepted” the downgrade is a red herring. I do not think the evidence is conclusive one way or the other, but I also do not view it as particularly relevant. I am considering the “medical information”, but it is not relevant whether or not it is accepted by a case manager. Clearly, based on the fact that I am making this determination, the downgrade was not accepted, although it may have been at the time.
Secondly, the issue concerning the reference to “Nicola” as a treating psychologist, submissions made by the respondent after the close of submissions following input from the instructing insurer, are also not determinative one way or the other. As the applicant points out, Nicola Rice has previously treated Ms Wright and provides a “Letter of support” dated 15 June 2021. That letter refers to the “incredible toll her employment role has taken on her mental health in recent months”. Clearly Ms Rice has been connected to Ms Wright due to her psychological injury arising out of employment. Ms Korman has also treated Ms Wright.
There are many reasons why the applicant may be seeing Ms Rice rather than Ms Korman. It may be due to availability. It may be due to personal preference. But there is no evidence before me that it is due to the apparent separation between Ms Wright and her partner. This is all supposition at the respondent’s part, supposition contradicted by the evidence included in the application from Ms Rice.
In this case the abundance of evidence makes it clear that Ms Wright has no present capacity for employment. Her treating doctor makes that clear. The independent medical expert report of A/Prof Robertson makes that clear. The reports provided by Ms Korman make that clear.
The respondent sought to distinguish the report of A/Prof Robertson by submitting that I could give it no weight. This is based on the answer to a question about incapacity, where A/Prof Robertson opined that Ms Wright has not demonstrated capacity for employment since the date of injury. The respondent submitted that this conclusion was wholly inconsistent with the previous certificates.
I do not accept this submission. Here, A/Prof Robertson was providing his opinion as an independent medical expert. He is entitled to reach a conclusion different to the certifications of Ms Wright’s treating practitioner on capacity. Putting that to one side, Ms Wright has not been able to work since her injury, i.e. she has not “demonstrated capacity for employment since the date of injury” (emphasis added). She may have been certified with some capacity for suitable employment by Dr Kdade, but has not demonstrated that capacity in a real sense.
I would also observe that in this case Ms Wright’s initial capacity upgrade, from nil to 15 hours per week, appears to be in part in response to the vocational assessment process being conducted and a change to a focus on employment options outside of her pre-injury duties. The case conference notes of 10 February 2022 record:
“Ms Wright clarified if she needed capacity for work to engage in this process and Rehab Management advised that capacity would be needed to improve her chances of obtaining new employment and would be required when a labour market analysis of the approved options was undertaken.”
As is often the case, the upgrade to capacity was with encouragement of the potential to engage in new employment. That upgrade was then used to reduced benefits to the worker.
The respondent has attempted to overturn the abundance of medical evidence before me by distinguishing the cause of Ms Wright’s downgrade. The respondent’s submissions describe the timing of that downgrade as “convenient”. The applicant took exception to that comment, describing Ms Wright’s current situation as anything but convenient, which I think is a fair assessment. Ms Wright was treated incredibly poorly by her employer. The undisputed medical evidence is that she continues to suffer from that treatment and continues to be incapacitated from her psychological injury.
I have observed that it is often the case that a worker will suffer a downgrade after the receipt of a work capacity decision reducing or terminating weekly payments. That of itself is not a reason to doubt the veracity of that downgrade. It is appropriate to investigate the circumstances of that downgrade, but not to proceed on the basis that it was insidious. It seems to me, based on the submissions made and the respondent’s general attitude towards this claim, that that was the presumption.
However, from viewing the evidence in this matter it is clear that Ms Wright’s condition has fluctuated over time. The first mediation appeared to be very positive for her. She was described as feeling “empowered”. The second mediation seemed to go poorly and had a negative effect as it “didn’t go well”.
The ongoing issues regarding to her return to work with the respondent, which had been countenanced for some time, have clearly contributed to her capacity. This is covered in detail in Ms Wright’s statement, where she discusses the requirement to sit a test to retain her position in the restructure, or accept a voluntary redundancy.
The crux of the issue in dispute, however, relates to Ms Wright’s relationship with her partner and the clinical note of 12 May 2022 which records “Jonathan is leaving her and house”. The respondent submits that the downgrade in capacity, leading to her current nil capacity for employment, was caused by issues unrelated to her work injury.
The question is, in essence, one of causation. What caused Ms Wright’s downgrade in capacity?
The difficulty with that submission is that it has been widely accepted and acknowledged that a condition can have multiple causes (ACQ Pty Ltd v Cook [2009] HCA 28). Roche DP describes that principle as “trite law” in St George Leagues Club Ltd v Wretowska [2013] NSWWCCPD 64, where he acknowledges that it is especially so concerning psychological injury.
In the present case there are multiple contributing factors. I acknowledge that there is no doubt that Ms Wright’s potential separation from her partner would have had a significant impact on her mental state and her ability to function in employment from a capacity sense. Equally, however, there were the ongoing issues with her employer relating to redundancy, and the continuing mental effects of the psychological injury itself.
Further, it is difficult to separate the effect on Ms Wright’s marriage from the psychological injury with other causes. It is clear that the work injury has had a significant impact on her relationship. Ms Wright has had multiple almost dissociative episodes where she acted violently, with police involvement. This would have placed great strain on the relationship.
It is also clear that Ms Wright’s mental health was deteriorating prior to the downgrade. Contributing to this downgrade were matters such as the poor second mediation, the redundancy issue at work (which is directly linked to her return to work plan arising out of her injury), and potentially, a deteriorating relationship with her husband. As discussed above, Ms Wright’s relationship with her husband has been greatly affected by her injury.
The respondent has also attempted to paint Ms Wright’s departure from her employment with the respondent, through a redundancy process, in a certain way. The respondent submits that the situation that led to the employment ending was a voluntary redundancy. This is technically correct, however, when one looks at the actual circumstances, Ms Wright was left with little choice in the matter. To maintain her employment, she would have been required to sit an onerous test of her skills, in circumstances where she had not worked at all since her injury. The “voluntary” aspect of the redundancy is in contrast with a “forced” redundancy. Ultimately, Ms Wright had little choice other than to accept that offer, and expressed her interest to her employer in that regard.
To accept that the downgrade was not connected to her injury I would have to accept that there was some kind of novus actus severing the causal link between the work injury and Ms Wright’s current incapacity. There is insufficient evidence to make that finding and it was not properly put that way by the respondent.
The overwhelming weight of evidence in this matter supports the conclusion that Ms Wright has no current capacity. Accordingly, the work capacity decision must be set aside and award made for ongoing payments to the applicant.
Decision
For the reasons above, the respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act at the rate of $1,456 per week, to be indexed from time to time in accordance with the legislation.
0
2
0