Case Background: Teacher’s Class Allocation & Challenges

The appellant was employed as a teacher. Towards the end of Term 4 in 2020, the appellant was informed as to the composition of her class for the following year, which included Student A, Student B, and Student C, all of whom had previously displayed challenging behaviours.

The appellant taught her allocated class from January to April 2021. On 25 March 2021, Dr Michele Calvird, Psychiatrist, provided a work capacity certificate stating that the appellant was suffering from an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood. In Dr Calvird’s opinion, this injury had been sustained by the appellant by virtue of being “[e]xposed to marked traumatic experiences in [the] workplace due to students’ aggression, without sufficient extra measures/support being put in place by school management for her/others’ safety”. This diagnosis was later confirmed by the appellant’s General Practitioner, Dr Takako Kobayashi, along with a diagnosis of stress induced IBS.

Thereafter, the appellant lodged an application for compensation with WorkCover Queensland on 12 April 2021.

It was not in dispute that the appellant’s injury had arisen as a consequence of both management action and non-management action. Those non-management action stressors related to the behaviour of Students A, B, and C in her class, which was described by the appellant to include aggressive and physical contact towards other students, staff, and herself. The management action stressors were associated with the support provided to the appellant by the employer to manage the behaviour of the three students.

Issue

As identified by the Commission, the issue to be determined was whether the appellant suffered an “injury” within the meaning of s 32 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (QLD) (“the Act”).

The respondent contended that the appellant’s injury was excluded by s 32(5), which provides that the meaning of “injury” does not include a psychiatric disorder that arises as a result of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way in connection with a worker’s employment.

The appellant maintained that her injury was not excluded by the s 32(5) reasonable management action exclusion.

Decision

The Commission dismissed the appellant’s appeal.

The Commission found that the vast majority of the sixty-plus stressors relied upon by the appellant had been factually substantiated. However, the “difficulty for the Appellant’s claim”, as asserted by the Commission, was that the appellant was not only stressed by the non-management actions, being the conduct of the students, but also that she was significantly stressed by her view that she received insufficient support from her employer. The Commission was satisfied that the medical evidence, in particular a report from the appellant’s treating psychiatrist, supported the conclusion that the appellant’s injury had arisen as a result of both types of stressors, and did not accept that the injury occurred notwithstanding the management action.

The Commission considered the management action stressors, of which there were five (5), and concluded that the employer had taken reasonable management action in a reasonable way throughout the relevant period in respect of these stressors.

The Commission asserted that but for the existence of the management action stressors, the claim would be one for acceptance. However, given the conclusions that management action was a significant contributing factor to the injury, and that this management action was reasonable, the Commission held that s 32(5) of the Act had been enlivened, excluding the Appellant’s claim. Accordingly, the Commission held that the appellant did not suffer an injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Act.

If you have any queries regarding the article, please contact via Free Claim Checker or email us.