The worker lodged a claim for compensation after a meeting with her employer. The Tribunal was satisfied that the close temporal connection between that meeting and the lodgment of the claim was enough to reasonably argue the illness was caused by reasonable administrative action.
In issue
- Whether the employer’s argument that the worker’s claim for a psychiatric injury was substantially caused by reasonable administrative actions was ‘reasonably arguable’ on the basis of a temporal connection.
The background
The worker made a claim for compensation on 19 December 2024 for a psychiatric injury caused by what she claimed was an unsupportive workplace, overwhelming workload, constant worrying, and extreme worry about other staff.
Her employer, being the State of Tasmania, sought to dispute liability for the claim under section 81A of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas) (Act). In its referral, the employer did not dispute that the worker suffered from a psychological illness, but argued that the illness substantially arose from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner by the employer in connection with the worker’s employment under section 25(1A)(c).
The employer relied on a statement of Ms McKenzie, acting chief people officer, who said the following:
- the worker and Ms McKenzie would have regular catch ups and from an early stage it was evident to Ms McKenzie that the project the worker was undertaking ‘wasn’t being supported’,
- Ms McKenzie informed the worker a consultant would be brought in to review the rostering. The worker wasn’t informed of this initially, but Ms McKenzie did not consider this unreasonable,
- on a separate occasion, Ms McKenzie informed the worker an expert program manager would be engaged to assess and provide recommendations. The worker was assured her role was not being replaced,
- on 17 December 2024, a final catch up occurred. The expert project manager role was discussed again, and the worker was assured it was not for the purpose of replacing her role. Ms McKenzie stated the outcome of the recommendations given by the expert were unknown and this included the need for certain roles. She then asked the worker ‘what her role was in the project’. She claimed she did not say this in an accusatory manner, and she asked the question for the purpose of clarification.
The employer did not dispute the worker’s condition was attributable to her employment. Rather, the employer argued it was as a result of reasonable administrative action in that it arose from the interactions between the worker and Ms Mckenzie.
The decision at trial
Senior Member Chandler accepted it was reasonably arguable that both the actions of the employer were reasonable administrative actions, and the worker’s illness arose from those actions.
The Senior Member’s decision turned on the temporal connection between the worker’s final catch-up with Ms Mckenzie and the lodgment of the claim.
As such, he made the order that a reasonably arguable case existed in that the employer demonstrated a reasonable argument that if the evidence of the employer were accepted at a hearing the employer may avoid liability for the worker’s claim by virtue of section 25(1A)(c).
Implications for you
Generally, medical evidence has been useful to support an argument for reasonable administrative action being the major and most significant contributing factor to a psychological illness. This is especially the case where other factors such as work stress, insufficient support, heavy workload are involved which makes detangling the cause of a worker’s condition difficult.
However, this decision indicates that a temporal connection between the lodgment of a claim and a reasonable administrative action may satisfy the Tribunal a reasonably arguable case exists, and medical evidence may not be necessary to support such an argument.
The State of Tasmania (Department of Health) v KND [2025] TASCAT 58
