Top End teacher traumatised by student violence Denese Woods loses compo appeal on technicality

An ‘apparent anomaly’ in the law has left a Top End teacher entitled to compensation for less than half of her accepted psychological injury.

A teacher who suffered a debilitating ‘mental injury’ following threats of violence from students has had her workers compensation effectively more than halved.

A Top End teacher who suffered a debilitating “mental injury” following threats of violence from students has had her workers compensation effectively more than halved thanks to an “apparent anomaly” in the law.

Denese Woods made a claim under the Return to Work Act relating to her “perception of threatened violence and risk to her safety from students” while teaching at Katherine High in 2017 and Palmerston College in 2020.

“It was claimed that in the course of her employment the appellant was exposed to traumatic and violent interactions with students which substantially contributed to her sustaining psychological injuries,” a Supreme Court ruling handed down on Friday reads.

The Education Department eventually accepted liability for both injuries and paid her more than $35,000 in compensation for a 10 per cent whole person impairment in 2022.

But Ms Woods argued in the Work Health Court that the two injuries combined to entitle her to compensation for a 22 per cent WPI, while the department maintained its original calculation was correct.

The department claimed that “to treat the two separate injuries as giving rise to one compensable lump sum permanent impairment assessment” was “contrary the proper operation of the act”.

In November last year, judge Ray Murphy sided with the department, ruling that “the permanent impairment caused to the worker by the first injury and the second injury cannot be combined”.

Denese Woods.

Ms Woods then appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court where Justice Trevor Riley affirmed Mr Murphy’s interpretation of the law on Friday.

“Whether one impairment or more than one impairment arose out of two or more incidents considered in a medical sense, the legislative provisions applicable for the purposes of calculating compensation require that the matter proceed in accordance with the act and guidelines,” he said.

“That is what occurred in the present case.”

But in dismissing the appeal, Justice Riley raised concerns about the fairness of the law as it stands.

“In my opinion, this case throws up an apparent anomaly in the legislative regime which I draw to the attention of the (Work Health) Authority,” he said.

“The appellant suffered permanent impairment of 22 per cent WPI arising out of injuries suffered in the course of her employment.

“Had the appellant suffered that level of impairment arising out of one injury in the course of her employment her compensation would have been significantly greater than is the case where she has the same level of permanent impairment caused by two injuries occurring some years apart as described in this case.”