Gin Gin teacher Conrad Murphy loses Workcover claim appeal

A Bundaberg region teacher confined to a wheelchair has appealed a decision by Workcover not to grant his claim for psychological injury due to his excessive workload while at the school. SEE THE VERDICT:

A former teacher has lost his appeal over a rejected Workcover claim.

Conrad Murphy, 48-years-old at the time and a paraplegic as a result of a motorcycle accident when he was 15, was working at the Gin Gin State School in 2018 when he says he received a psychological injury as a result of his excessive workload.

He took the claim to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to appeal it after Workcover rejected his original claim.

A published ruling by Queensland Industrial Relations Commissioner Catherine Hartigan said Mr Murphy was advised that year he would be team teaching a Year 4, 5 and 6 composite class with Ms Jane Stebhens and Ms Kellee Hutchinson.

This would include children with disabilities.

Mr Murphy started experiencing issues after the first two weeks, telling the QIRC he and Ms Stebhens were supposed to be team teaching but it was not working.

“We never had any time together to be able to plan together or team teach,” Mr Murphy said.

“So Jane (Stebhens) said at the end of that first couple weeks, ‘We’re going to split the class in half’.

“So she took half the students and taught them the maths and English in her room for the first two sessions.

A former Gin Gin teacher has had a rejected Workcover appeal dismissed.

“I took the other half of the class and I taught them maths and English for my section of the class in my room in the first two sessions and then in the afternoon I was to teach all other subjects on my own.”

In July 2018, Mr Murphy attended two separate GP appointments where he was diagnosed with anxiety/depression and “work stressors”, the ruling said.

He claimed working 10 hours a day was one of the contributing factors for his diagnosis.

However, Ms Hartigan said in her ruling Mr Murphy gave limited evidence with respect to any proactive steps he took to contribute to team teaching in the class to “make it work”.

“I infer from his evidence that he was not satisfied with being placed within the class,” Ms Hartigan said.

The Workers Compensation Regulator had argued Mr Murphy’s injury had not been sustained in accordance with the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act as it had “arisen out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer” and was therefore excluded.

Ms Hartigan said in her ruling Mr Murphy did not provide enough evidence to establish that the teaching scenario was responsible for his work cover claim.

“In this appeal, the onus was on Mr Murphy to establish that he suffered an injury within the meaning of (section) 32 of the Act,” Ms Hartigan said.

“Mr Murphy has not discharged that onus.”

“I did not accept that the injury arose out of, or in the course of, employment from the sole stressor of excessive workload nominated by Mr Murphy.”

Mr Murphy was ordered to pay the regulator’s costs.