Supreme Court dismisses appeal against teacher’s nervous breakdown compensation
Workers psychiatrically injured on the job are closer to receiving the same rights as those who suffer physical injuries after the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against a teacher’s payout
National
Don't miss out on the headlines from National. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Drugged killer driver a ‘heartless coward’
- Are you getting the most from your Advertiser subscription?
Workers who suffer psychiatric injuries in the line of duty will be more likely to be awarded compensation following a landmark decision in the Supreme Court.
The full sitting of the state’s highest court unanimously ruled that workers who suffer psychiatric injury would face “grave difficulties” getting compensation under the current interpretation of the act.
However, the Law Society has warned that the judgment does not go far enough towards making psychiatric injury the same as physical injury in the eyes of the law.
Today, the court refused to overturn compensation awarded to a teacher who suffered a mental breakdown after working in a class with students threatening to kill her and each other.
The teacher, who was awarded compensation in November 2018, became a test case for how psychiatric injury is compensated in the workplace.
Her successful application for compensation was appealed to the full sitting of the South Australian Employment Tribunal in 2019 where the decision was upheld.
The State Government argued before the Supreme Court that workplace factors had to be the only significant cause of a psychiatric injury in order for compensation to be awarded.
This meant that if a worker had any other significant trauma in their life which could have contributed in a significant way to the breakdown, then no compensation could be ordered.
In dismissing the appeal, the court held that workplace factors need to be more significant than the total of all other issues, taking into account other elements which affect mental illness.
In his lead judgment Justice Greg Parker questioned the narrow approach put forward by the State Government.
“It is commonplace that experienced psychiatrists cannot identify with certainty a specific cause for psychiatric injury,” he said.
“The nature of such injuries, as this case exemplifies, is that they will frequently have a number of possible causes.
“The likely result under the interpretation favoured by the appellant, is that workers suffering from psychiatric injuries will face grave difficulties in establishing that their injury is
compensable.”
Chief Justice Chris Kourakis, and Auxiliary Justice Sydney Tilmouth agreed with the Justice Parker’s verdict.
MORE NEWS:
Ray of sunshine with Gupta’s solar farm ready to build
Why the 2020 AFL season cannot be revived
Law Society President Tim White said the judgment cast much needed light on the way the statute was to be interpreted, but also maintained that the decision placed “significant barriers” between injured workers and compensation.
“The Society maintains the view that the legislation, faithfully interpreted by the judgment, unfairly treats psychiatrically injured workers,” he said.
“The complex nature of psychiatric injuries is such that it is often difficult to neatly classify and assess the various factors contributing to the injury.
“In addition to the more difficult test applied to psychiatric injuries, the workers compensation
scheme prohibits anyone who suffered a work-related psychiatric injury from receiving any lump sum compensation in recognition of their impairment.”
After more than two years of appeals the teacher, who The Advertiser has chosen not to name, will finally receive compensation.
Originally published as Supreme Court dismisses appeal against teacher’s nervous breakdown compensation