Worker argues psychological condition arose out of injury; employer says it’s a separate claim
The Supreme Court of Tasmania recently dealt with a workers' compensation case that raised questions about whether an employer could dispute liability for a psychological injury that developed months after an accepted physical workplace injury.
The case highlighted important considerations about how physical workplace injuries can lead to psychological conditions, and whether employers can treat these secondary psychological claims as separate injuries.
The Court's decision provided clarity on managing workers' compensation claims where an initial physical injury evolves to include mental health impacts.
A correctional officer sustained a knee injury at work in August 2021. His claim form stated he "walked out of lift with white box, twisted to put box down and twisted right knee." Medical certificates described this as a "soft tissue injury R) knee."
The employer accepted this initial claim, and the worker returned to work while continuing physiotherapy treatment.
By June 2022, the worker's condition showed signs of deterioration. He provided a medical certificate noting "2 incidents 20/06/2022 have flared knee pain."
This resulted in a period of certified incapacity from 21 June to 5 July 2022. Following this period, he worked under a return-to-work plan.
In April 2023, the situation became more complicated when the worker filed another compensation claim for psychological symptoms. The claim cited "severe anxiety and depression resulting from ongoing WC injury, lack of meaningful work on my RTW plan."
A medical certificate dated 12 April 2023 documented symptoms of "low mood, anxiety" related to "change work capacity and health."
A psychiatric assessment proved crucial in establishing the connection between the physical and psychological conditions.
The psychiatrist wrote: "the substantive cause of his adjustment disorder diagnosed above is the pathology in [the worker's] right knee and the relevant context and consequences."
The employer argued they should be able to dispute the psychological injury claim separately, maintaining it stemmed from their reasonable administrative actions rather than the original knee injury.
The court, however, focused on a different aspect, stating: "The critical question under s80A will depend on the nature of the claim communicated to [the employer]."
The court emphasised that psychological conditions often develop alongside physical injuries in workers' compensation cases.
As noted in the judgment: "As a matter of common sense, it can often be expected that a psychological condition will occur as a consequence of the ongoing effects of a physical injury on [the worker's] life."
In its analysis, the court found that even if the psychological symptoms partly arose from how the employer managed the compensation claim, they remained connected to the original knee injury.
The court observed: "There is nothing in [the worker's] claim which relates to action in respect of his employment, other than that directly arising from the workers compensation claim for, and the effects of, his knee injury."
This interpretation meant the employer could not treat the psychological injury as a separate claim.
The court concluded: "I am satisfied that the Tribunal's conclusion that [the worker's] claim for incapacity arising from psychological symptoms was in respect of the physical injury was correct, and indeed the only conclusion open on the undisputed evidence."
The judgment offered important guidance for employers managing workers' compensation claims where psychological conditions develop after physical injuries.
It emphasised that subsequent psychological conditions may be considered part of the original injury claim, rather than separate injuries that employers can independently dispute.
