Introduction
BDT v Aware Super Services Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPIC 199 was a workers compensation case heard in the New South Wales Personal Injury Commission. The case primarily focused on the claim for weekly benefits and medical expenses due to psychological injury alleged to have resulted from stress, overwork, and lack of support over a two-year period in the course of BDT’s employment with Aware Super Services Pty Ltd (the respondent). The decision was made on 3 May 2023.
Background
BDT (the claimant) commenced employment with the respondent on 22 October 2018 as an executive assistant to the Group Executive, Legal and Company Secretariat. She performed her duties throughout her employment period until she was made redundant on 15 July 2022.
The claimant alleges that she was in good health with no pre-existing injuries or medical conditions when she began her employment and had never been counselled for any work performance issues or breaches in company policy and procedures. She claims her work-related stress began with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic when workloads increased significantly. Despite raising these concerns with her supervisor, her request for additional assistance was met with a negative response.
In mid-April 2022, BDT spoke to her supervisor about reducing her work hours, which was not responded to within the stipulated 21-day period as per the respondent’s Flexible Working Policy (FWP). A meeting with the respondent’s representatives on 26 May 2022 revealed plans for a legal team restructure and potential redundancy for BDT’s role.
BDT ceased work on 3 June 2022 and sought medical assistance, eventually being diagnosed with an “Adjustment Disorder”. She lodged a “Worker’s injury claim form” on 8 August 2022, claiming overwork and lack of managerial support as the cause of her psychological injury. The respondent’s insurer, Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited (Allianz) as agent for icare, denied liability for the claimant’s claim in August 2022, stating that the claimant’s injury was not received in the course of employment and that employment was not the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, or deterioration of the claimant’s disease injury.
Case Decision
The decision, rendered by Member Brett Batchelor, held that the opinions of the claimant’s treating practitioners, and the independent medical examiner, were based on incomplete, inadequate, or incorrect evidence and should be given limited weight. It was determined that the claimant’s employment with the respondent over the period claimed by the claimant was not the main cause of her contracting psychological injury, or of the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, or deterioration of psychological injury. As a result, the award was for the respondent.
Implications for Future Personal Injury Cases
The decision in this case sets an important precedent in personal injury cases, particularly those involving psychological injury claims. It underscores the importance of the rigorous examination of medical evidence and highlights that employment must be the main cause of the psychological injury for the claim to succeed. It also emphasises the importance of presenting complete, accurate, and adequate evidence when making such claims.