Supreme Court assesses whether multiple conditions can be assessed
The Supreme Court of Queensland recently dealt with a case involving a worker's compensation claim for multiple psychiatric injuries stemming from a workplace accident. The decision highlighted issues surrounding the assessment and compensation of psychological injuries in the workplace.
The case centred on a worker's attempt to pursue damages for schizophrenia alongside previously accepted injuries of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and a head injury.
The worker argued that his schizophrenia should be considered part of a single, broader psychiatric injury already assessed, or alternatively, as a secondary condition linked to his accepted injuries.
These claims challenged the conventional understanding of how multiple psychiatric conditions are treated under workers' compensation legislation, raising questions about the scope of injury assessments and the rights of workers to seek damages for conditions that emerge after initial assessments.
The case began with a workplace accident on 19 January 2018, where a worker, employed as a boilermaker, was struck on the back of the head by a large metal hook attached to a chain in the employer's workshop.
This incident resulted in the worker being rendered unconscious and sustaining a head injury. Following the accident, the worker applied for and received workers' compensation benefits.
As the worker continued to receive medical treatment, he was diagnosed with work-related Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Work capacity certificates were issued identifying both the head injury and PTSD as work-related diagnoses.
Later, the worker was also diagnosed with schizophrenia, which was initially deemed not work-related and not included in any work capacity certificates.
The employer's insurer, WorkCover Queensland, accepted the worker's head injury and PTSD as compensable injuries under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA). However, at no point did they accept the worker's schizophrenia as a compensable injury.
WorkCover then referred the worker for independent assessment of his capacity for work and any degree of permanent impairment resulting from the accepted injuries.
Following these assessments, WorkCover issued notices of assessment for the accepted injuries, allowing the worker to make a claim for damages.
When the worker started legal proceedings against the employer, he sought damages not only for the physical injuries to his head and cervical spine and PTSD but also for schizophrenia (or a chronic aggravation of pre-existing mild schizophrenia).
The employer admitted negligence but argued that the worker was precluded from seeking damages for schizophrenia because WorkCover had not decided it was a compensable injury, nor had they issued a notice of assessment for that condition.
The worker's main argument was that his claim was for a single "psychiatric injury" that encompassed both PTSD and schizophrenia. He contended that the notice of assessment issued for PTSD extended to schizophrenia as well.
Alternatively, he argued that schizophrenia was "secondary" to the accepted physical injuries and/or PTSD, and therefore covered by the notices of assessment issued for those injuries.
To support this argument, the worker relied on the wording of Section 179 of the WCRA, which refers to "a psychiatric or psychological injury" in the singular. He argued this meant all psychiatric conditions should be treated as a single injury for assessment purposes.
The court rejected the worker's arguments, finding that the notice of assessment for PTSD did not encompass schizophrenia. The court emphasised that different psychiatric conditions can constitute separate injuries under the WCRA. As the decision stated:
"[The worker] does not challenge any of the factual findings made by the primary judge, nor does [the worker] suggest that the second notice of assessment is invalid. Disposition of the first ground of appeal, therefore, turns upon [the worker's] construction argument concerning s 32, s 179 and s 237 of the WCRA."
This interpretation aligns with the overall purpose of the WCRA, which aims to balance fair compensation for workers with reasonable costs for employers.
The court noted:
"If [the worker's] argument was correct, it would not be necessary for all psychological or psychiatric conditions allegedly sustained by an injured worker in the one event to be assessed, or to be the subject of a notice of assessment, with an accompanying offer of compensation, before a claim for damages could be commenced. That seems to me to run counter to the intent of a legislative scheme that regulates access to damages, which is designed to reduce costs by providing for mandatory steps to avoid litigation costs and to achieve earlier resolution of claims and payment of appropriate amounts of compensation."
This decision underscores the importance of properly assessing and classifying psychiatric injuries in workers' compensation cases. Employers and HR professionals should be aware that multiple psychiatric conditions arising from a single workplace incident may be treated as separate injuries, each requiring individual assessment.
Furthermore, notices of assessment for one psychiatric condition may not automatically cover other conditions, even if they are potentially related.
The intent of the workers' compensation scheme, as highlighted by this case, is to ensure all claimed injuries are properly assessed before proceeding to damages claims. This approach aims to balance worker benefits with employer costs.
In dealing with these delicate issues, medical evidence plays a crucial role in determining whether conditions are separate injuries or secondary consequences of an original injury.
Clear communication with insurers and medical professionals is essential to ensure all potential injuries are properly identified and assessed.
