Andrew Barrett v Department of Treasury and Finance [2025] SAET 69

The reliability of witnesses is always difficult to assess. Each witness sees events from his or her own perspective. Over time there is sometimes a degree of rationalisation to fit objective material (documents) as it emerges into the understanding of events. Some witnesses' memories become refined by a strong belief in the rightness of their role, so that objectivity is lost to a degree.[2]

1. With the greatest respect to his Honour, I believe that he understates the position: almost invariably, witnesses' memories become refined. This is so even where the objective facts are agreed. For example, witnesses may agree a question was posed: "how are you?" but disagree on whether the enquirer was being caring, prying - or even threatening.
2. Nevertheless, I consider the best way to decide the relevant factual disputes, is to analyse the evidence given in the context of the contemporary surrounding circumstances, whilst having regard to witness demeanour after allowing for extenuating circumstances.
3. What follows are my findings set out chronologically, taking into account the evidence of the witnesses in contemporaneous context.
4. For present purposes, the first significant event occurred in about May 2020, when the applicant was informed that he would be co-teaching with another lecturer (the colleague) for one day per week commencing in the second semester.
5. In the last iteration of the applicant's Statement of Issues and Contentions, the applicant states "the applicant and the colleague's working relationship was strained." From the evidence which I will detail later, that appears to be a significant understatement. During the course of their working relationship and thereafter, there were a series of complaints made by each against the other, and by other parties with at the very least the support or encouragement of each against the other.
6. The co-teaching arrangement lasted no more than the term and was discontinued at the request of the applicant.
7. However, the tension, if not outright animosity between the two, continued and escalated thereafter.
8. On 11 May 2021, the applicant made a formal allegation against the colleague alleging bullying of staff and students. To the extent it was not already the case, two camps evolved between staff - those who supported the applicant, and those who supported the colleague. Relations between the two camps varied from cool to ignoring each other.
9. Following a formal investigation, a letter was sent to the applicant dated 25 August 2021, which included the statement "it has been found that inappropriate behaviours are occurring within the workgroup that impacts on others, and it is acknowledged there also appears to be clashes of personalities and styles within the workgroup."[3]
10. The terms of the letter were seen by the applicant as an acknowledgement of the validity of the complaints raised by him. The applicant eschewed any suggestion that he saw it as a "vindication."
11. The next significant date was 13 October 2021, when the applicant received an email from Mr Peter Begg, the education manager of the AMEP, stating "hi Andy, I want to discuss some student complaints. Cheers Peter".[4]
12. Thereafter, during the course of that day there were a series of emails back and forth in which it was confirmed the complaints were about the applicant, and that the purpose of the meeting was to hear the applicant's "side of the story."
13. A meeting between Mr Begg and the applicant took place that afternoon. There is disagreement between the two as to what was said, with the applicant asserting Mr Begg's version was "a lie." The applicant was upset with Mr Begg's handling of the matter.
14. On 18 October 2021, the applicant attended his general practitioner for the first time in relation to these issues. The doctor's notes record:

1. The applicant continued at work.
2. The applicant re-attended his general practitioner on 20 October 2021 to develop an appropriate MHCP. At that consultation, the general practitioner recorded the appearance of the applicant in the following terms:

Behaviour: appropriate, reasonable eye contact, not downcast nor agitated. No hand wringing.

Conversation: free-flowing modulated normal volume and rate.

Affect: slightly anxious. Perception: no perceptual abnormalities detected.

Cognition: no evidence of formal thought disorder nor disorder of content.

1. The applicant was prescribed medication and referred to a specialist. No time off work was given.
2. In late 2021, the applicant sought to reduce his teaching hours from full-time to .6 for a term, whilst accessing some long service leave for the balance. His intention was to have a series of long weekends with his partner and their dogs.
3. In early December, there was various correspondence regarding offers that may accommodate the change including his teaching from a different campus. Ultimately, the decision was made that he remained on the same campus but changed to a different teaching stream than that of the colleague. The applicant reports becoming angry and distressed at what he perceived was inaccurate explanations for the change. In his evidence before me, the applicant indicated that his change of teaching level was to keep the colleague where she wanted to stay, not because of his desire to change to .6.
4. On 3 December 2021, the applicant sent an email to the entire distribution list, putting forward his position in relation to the issues.
5. Next, in an angry state, on 6 December 2021, the applicant resolved to confront Mr Begg in relation to what he saw as being a series of false statements in relation to the changes. On his way to the lift, to go to Mr Begg's office, he confronted the colleague. In a moment of anger, he admits he pointed to her and said, "you're next" and called her a "racist pig" and a "bully and a liar."
6. Mr Begg's door was closed, and so the applicant did not get to speak to him.
7. That same day, the applicant received a letter from Ms Raper, Director, Health Community and Foundation Skills, regarding the lift incident and also the distribution list email.
8. On 7 December, the applicant met with Ms Raper. As with the meeting with Mr Begg, the applicant has a very different version of what transpired at that meeting.
9. By email and letter dated 16 December 2021, Ms Raper wrote to the applicant to confirm her version of what took place on 7 December 2021.
10. That letter was received by the applicant following the Christmas closure commencement. Although the applicant cannot now recall precisely when he read that letter, because of what he perceived as inaccuracies in the recall of the meeting by Ms Raper, on 3 January 2020 he emailed a formal complaint regarding Ms Raper, to Ms Datson, HR Business Partner.
11. By letter dated 13 January 2022, co-signed by Ms Pennetta (Director, Workforce Alignment) and Ms Raper, the applicant was directed to stay away from the workplace, with pay pending the outcome of an investigation process involving "a number of ongoing matters between yourself and your colleague."[6] The letter flagged a proposed notification of appropriate duties he would be able to perform remotely working from home.
12. The applicant was informed that a letter in similar terms had been sent to the colleague directing that she, too, stay away from the workplace.
13. The applicant met with his general practitioner on 8 January 2022 to discuss various matters including that he would be happy to work from home in the interim.
14. Subsequently, the applicant was working from home until he received a further letter dated 10 March 2022.[7] By that letter, the applicant was informed that it was suspected on reasonable grounds that he had committed serious misconduct involving inappropriate/bullying behaviour towards the colleague, for which he may be liable to disciplinary action up to, and including, termination of employment, if the allegations were substantiated. The letter was to give him an opportunity to respond.
15. The applicant describes that letter as the trigger to stop working. He has not returned to work since.

1. Dr Powierza has been the applicant's treating general practitioner for his mental health since 15 December 2021.
2. By that time, the applicant had been referred to a psychologist and prescribed temazepam for sleep on 20 October 2021, and an anti-depressant, Endep, on 22 November 2021. The last consultation before coming under the care of Dr Powierza was with Dr Nakhjavani on 9 December 2021, who recorded:

He had an incident a week ago, argument with a staff

He thinks he behaved in a way which he didn't expect himself

SSRIs if ultimately he is not able to manage his stress

Patient is informed that I am moving to another practice

1. Dr Powierza did not diagnose an adjustment disorder, but only that the applicant was suffering symptoms of anxiety.[8]
2. The first work capacity certificate issued was on 19 January 2022, certifying the applicant as suffering from "anxiety, chest tightness, difficulty sleeping, poor concentration" and fit to work "online only, from home."[9] Her evidence relating to the circumstances of issuing that certificate was somewhat vague[10]. I do not consider the doctor was certifying the applicant as being partially incapacitated for work at that time, but rather confirming that he was fit to undertake the duties that the employer required him to perform.

1. The psychologist to whom Dr Nakhjavani referred the applicant was Mr John Kaye. Mr Kaye was not required to give evidence, but his notes disclose that the applicant consulted him on 14 December 2021, 18 January 2022, 7 February 2022, 11 April 2022, 21 April 2022, 12 May 2022 and 16 June 2022.
2. At the initial consultation, Mr Kaye's notes record:

On my questioning his reason for seeing me, Andrew, a TAFE Lecturer, delineated a Workplace issue in which he felt unjustly treated and that caused him great emotional distress. Specifically he revealed that he was placed at a disadvantage in the workplace by an accusation without foundation levelled against him by another lecturer and subsequent suspected collusion between that lecturer and the division manager against him.

Questioned about his reaction to what he saw as injustice, Mr. Barrett revealed a major level of psychological dysfunction: poor sleep, constant nightmares, chest pain, headaches, feelings of despair/ helplessness and a powerlessness that he claimed he had never previously experienced. This was accompanied by poor concentration, and anxious, perseverant rumination.

1. His summary of his further notes is incorporated in his report of 27 June 2022, and states:

A TAFE lecturer, Mr. Barrett co-taught with a female lecturer but refused to coteach with her due to reports that she had bullied and abused non-Muslim students.

As I understand it, some students had complained to him re this teacher and it was reported to him that she had "bad-mouthed" him to students and levelled an accusation against him of hating Muslim Students. This he took to the Union and as Health and Safety Representative had put in an Incident Report re the other lecturer's bullying behaviour toward a student.

In turn she had accused him of abusing her by "whispering in her ear" an accusation he found risible and 'Repulsive" and flatly denied. He was accused of being threatening and intimidating.

Mr. Barrett reports that the female teacher was supported by the manager and that he found himself increasingly harassed and victimised by the Manager.

Mr. Barrett stated to me that when he sought support with managing this escalating workplace conflict the matter was referred to EAP.

At this stage the College Director became involved.

In the belief that he was not believed, was being undermined with the alleged student complaints about him being believed, Mr. Barrett sought to involve the Union.

The Manager (?Director) had him moved to another campus with his teaching demoted.

In March 2022, Mr. Barrett was summoned to respond to allegations levelled against him of serious misconduct.

He put in a claim for Workers Compensation and is currently still not working.

1. Dr Blakemore was called by the applicant. His reports dated 3 April 2023, 28 February 2024 and 8 April 2024, were tendered in evidence. Dr Blakemore initially examined the applicant on 3 April 2023. He re-examined him on 28 February 2024.
2. When Dr Blakemore first saw the applicant, he expressed a firm opinion that the applicant was suffering from adjustment disorder with depressed mood. As to what may have caused that condition, he was far more hesitant.
3. In his evidence, Dr Blakemore made the frank concession that:

the main thing that I tend to clarify to myself is that there is something wrong, you know, that he's ill. I am not in a very good position to clarify causation. I can make a shot at it, as best I can, but the main thing is to determine if he is ill.[11]

1. Further, Dr Blakemore could not be confident as to the date of injury. From the general practitioner's notes, he observed that in October 2021, the applicant was prescribed what Dr Blakemore described as "calming medication."[12] Dr Blakemore concluded from that:

You'd tend to think that there's a diagnosis before medication is prescribed. Somebody has thought it's real enough. It's very rare to have a medication prescribed without a depression.[13]

1. Despite that conclusion, I note that the general practitioner she does not appear to make any diagnosis other than "anxiety/stress" from her notes. In response to that, Dr Blakemore stated:

Well, if people prescribe medication, generally they're concerned about the other person enough. Otherwise, they just would have referred to the psychologist. I would have thought that you don't prescribe unless there's an illness diagnosis. I wouldn't have thought. I wouldn't prescribe unless someone was ill enough to need it. But I can't speak for the doctor.[14]

1. I am not prepared to attach the same significance to the fact of prescription as does Dr Blakemore. Even after the general practitioner diagnosed recovery in 2024, prescriptions continued to be issued.
2. When the subsequent history of events was put to Dr Blakemore, he stated that in his view, the applicant was suffering from an adjustment disorder by the time he ceased work on 10 March 2022:

HIS HONOUR: All right. Now, as I say, Mr Barrett continued to work full-time, not taking any time off work. There was the conflict you're aware of, where he spoke aggressively to the colleague that he's been in conflict with, and sent an email on a general distribution list. As a result of those two things, he was called in to speak to one of his managers again about those issues. He continued working until the end of term, and then I think you've recorded in your report that about a week into the holidays, he received a letter about that.

And the letter, he felt equally, was not consistent of what he had recalled of the meeting he had with the manager and that he said upset him as well in terms of that. In fact, I think he may have complained about the person who had written that letter in those circumstances. Then the next thing that happened was on 13 January, he received a letter directing him to stay away from the workplace and understood that the colleague with whom he was in conflict also received a letter for her to stay away as well, so they were not to go to work, but the suggestion was perhaps they could, he could work from home and indeed he spoke to his GP and said he was happy with that approach.

So he continued teaching but by video-link from home rather than by attending at the campus. And that situation continued. He was working full-time normal duties but from home until he received that letter that you've been taken to by Mr Boisseau of 10 March indicating reasonably suspect he's been guilty of serious disciplinary breaches that may result, if confirmed, in the termination of employment or other disciplinary action. Now as Mr Boisseau said then five days later, he sees his GP and is put off work for the first time. Now would it be your view on that limited information, and what happened at that point that at least by that stage he had developed an adjustment disorder with depressed mood?

1. Dr Blakemore accepted that an adjustment disorder must be reasonably proximate to the stressors you are adjusting or reacting to. He noted the DSM-5 requires 3 months, but considered that time period to be "pulled out of the sky."[16]
2. Dr Blakemore hypothesised that the applicant was depressed at the time he was prescribed medication "and it's been ongoing, rolling on. And clearly most likely that getting this letter was much more of a jolt."[17]
3. The medical records indicate that when seen on 18 October 2021, no prescription was given. When reviewed on 20 October 2021 for the preparation of a mental health plan, the applicant was prescribed temazepam as a sleeping tablet.

1. Dr Moffatt, psychiatrist, was called by the respondent. Dr Moffatt has examined the applicant on 3 occasions and provided 4 reports.
2. Dr Moffatt first examined the applicant on 24 March 2022.
3. In her report dated 5 April 2022, she expressed the caveat that "[t]here may be validity issues in the absence of a complete data set, and I note the absence of any corroborative information from Mr Barrett's general practitioner or psychologist." However, she considered the applicant "presented in a relatively straightforward manner and there was no indication to suggest that the history he provided was unreliable."
4. Dr Moffatt expressed the opinion that:

the symptoms described are consistent with the DSM-5 diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Mr Barrett described mood and anxiety symptoms that arose in response to the identifiable stressor of persistent harassment by his co-worker, with a worsening of symptoms after learning about an investigation into his own conduct. His symptoms are clinically significant and have resulted in a significant impairment in important areas of his functioning. Mr Barrett's presentation at assessment was, in my opinion, entirely consistent with this diagnosis...

In my opinion, and on the balance of probabilities, the significant cause of Mr Barrett's diagnosis has been his employment with TAFE SA. I consider the substantive cause of his condition to be the perceived bullying and harassment by a colleague and victimisation by his boss, which led to a significant deterioration of his mental health in October 2021.

1. In her oral evidence, Dr Moffatt expressed the view that the applicant's symptoms commenced in April 2021,[18] and on the history provided, the applicant reached the diagnostic threshold for an adjustment disorder in October 2021.[19] His symptoms were exacerbated and became more severe when he received notification of the investigation in December 2021,[20] and were exacerbated even further when he was required to respond to preliminary findings in March 2022.[21] Nevertheless, the (perceived[22]) bullying, harassment and victimisation remained the significant cause of the adjustment disorder.[23]
2. On further review of the applicant on 29 June 2023, Dr Moffatt detected "an increasing suggestion of potentially maladaptive personality factors influencing Mr Barrett's insight and judgement."[24] This had not been noted at the time of the first consultation. Dr Moffatt explained that "the number of times you see someone helps with assessing that."[25] Dr Moffatt explained that at the second assessment:

there were indicators through the second assessment of this inflexibility and this sort of preoccupation with justice becoming quite prominent. And I felt that that was influencing his presentation a lot more when I saw him a second time.[26]

1. Dr Moffatt clarified the significance of this by confirming she was not suggesting any lack of honesty on the part of the applicant, but rather that "[w]e all have personality traits that influence the way we see the world and how we respond to things."[27]
2. In her report of 6 July 2023, following the second consultation, Dr Moffatt stated:

Mr Barrett continues to attend psychotherapy and take antidepressant medication. He reported feeling much better after each psychology session, and in my opinion he generally presented as less anxious than at the previous assessment. However, this apparent improvement is not entirely consistent with Mr Barrett's subjective report of the overall situation being worse. I have concerns that, increasingly, it is the compensation-related matters, industrial issues, and possible contributions from Mr Barrett's underlying personality style that are maintaining his continued absence from work.[28]

1. Dr Moffatt's final consultation with the applicant was 21 March 2024, and resulted in a report dated 6 May 2024. In that report, Dr Moffatt reported:

Mr Barrett described a significant improvement in his mental state over the past six months and this was consistent with his presentation at assessment. He reported only intermittent anxiety with legal matters pertaining to his workers compensation claim, and disciplinary proceedings that have recommenced.

Mr Barrett attributed his improvement to a range of factors, including lifestyle changes, enhanced socialisation, time with his partner, and a greater insight into his own responses during periods of interpersonal conflict...

In my opinion Mr Barrett no longer has sufficient symptoms to meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and I concur with his general practitioner and Dr Blakemore that Mr Barrett has capacity for full-time employment in his usual role. I consider that the anxiety experienced in relation to legal and disciplinary proceedings is understandable, not pathological, and without significant functional impairment. A swift resolution to legal proceedings is recommended, and the sooner Mr Barrett returns to meaningful employment the better the longer term psychological outcome.[29]

(1) This Act applies to an injury if (and only if) it arises from employment.

(2) Subject to this section, an injury arises from employment if -

(b) in the case of a psychiatric injury -

(i) the psychiatric injury arises out of or in the course of employment and the employment was the significant contributing cause of the injury; and

(ii) the injury did not arise wholly or predominantly from any action or decision designated under subsection (4).

(4) The following are designated for the purposes of subsection (2)(b)(ii) and (3)(b)(ii):

(a) reasonable action taken in a reasonable manner by the employer to transfer, demote, discipline, counsel, retrench or dismiss the worker or a decision of the employer not to renew or extend a contract of service;

(b) a decision of the employer, based on reasonable grounds, not to award or provide a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with the worker's employment;

(c) reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner by the employer in connection with the worker's employment;

(d) reasonable action taken in a reasonable manner under this Act affecting the worker.

Regardless of whether an injured worker was in fact subject to mistreatment by a colleague, it is the injured worker's perception that that mistreatment has occurred that operates as the cause of a psychological injury. In this regard the following matters should be borne in mind:

The RTW Act imports no obligation that such a perception pass any qualitative test based on an objective measure of reasonableness.[30]

There must be some objective basis for that perception; in other words the perception must not be based on a pure delusion, but that does not mean that what the injured worker perceived must be consistent with what in fact occurred. It merely means that something must have occurred on which the perception was based.

Where something has in fact occurred, the injured worker's subjective perception of which has then precipitated a psychological injury, the fact of that occurrence is sufficient to determine that the occurrence has been the significant contributing cause of the injury, with attendant following questions as to whether that occurrence has arisen out of or in the course of employment.

Hence for the purposes of determining whether an injury is compensable under the RTW Act there is functionally no difference between a circumstance where a person has in fact been mistreated by a colleague and where they merely believe, even based on an erroneous interpretation, that to have been the case.[31]

a) The onus is on the applicant to establish the injury did not arise wholly or predominantly from a designated action or decision;[32] > > b) Where a case turns on a worker's perception of events, the worker must establish: > > 1. The events actually occurred; and > 2. Did create the perception and > 3. That perception was the cause of the injury.

1. Further, if the events were designated actions or decisions, any injury resulting from the applicant's perceptions of such actions would not be compensable.[33]

1. I have no difficulty in accepting that the applicant suffered from an adjustment disorder. Both psychiatrists agree.

1. However, I find the issues of date of onset and cause to be much more problematic.
2. I find myself unable to accept the evidence of Dr Moffatt that the adjustment disorder had become manifest by October 2021. The level and nature of the symptoms reported to the general practitioner, the applicant's ongoing capacity for work and leisure activities, and the lack of formal diagnosis, persuade me to believe that the applicant's psychological symptoms had not by then progressed to a diagnostic level. The first clear indication to me that such a level was reached was when the applicant ceased work in March 2022. I considered the opinions of Dr Blakemore to be consistent with that timing.
3. I am reinforced in that conclusion by s 118(1) of the RTW Act, which provides:

An injury (not being noise induced hearing loss) that develops gradually or is a disease will be taken to have occurred when the worker first becomes totally or partially incapacitated for work by the injury.

1. I am satisfied that the adjustment disorder was an injury which developed gradually. I consider the applicant first became incapacitated for work by the injury when he ceased work in March 2022. Accordingly, that is the date of injury for the purposes of the RTW Act.

1. On the issue of causation, I make the following findings.
2. While undoubtedly there was considerable animosity between the applicant and the colleague, I do not accept that the colleague bullied or harassed the applicant. From my assessment of the witnesses in giving their evidence, and the lack of any corroborative evidence or witnesses called by the applicant in support of his contentions, I do not find his allegations of bullying and harassment to be credible. The applicant struck me as a confident individual, with a strong sense of self-belief.
3. Moreover, I do not accept the alternate contention that the applicant perceived he was bullied or harassed by the colleague. I am not satisfied that the applicant has established events from which such a perception could arise. Although he may have convinced himself of that by the time of trial, the history of events and my assessment of the applicant in giving his evidence suggested strongly to me that in his conflicts with the colleague, he firmly believed he was right and sought vindication from management. In his dispute with the colleague, he utilised HR procedures and language to support his case. This involved his use of the complaint processes and terminology such as bullying and harassment.
4. I found Dr Moffatt's opinion, that the applicant had maladaptive personality factors influencing his insight and judgment, to be consonant with my own assessment of the applicant.
5. As the acceptance of a perception of bullying and harassment is the basis of Dr Moffatt's opinion on primary causation, I am unable to accept her opinion on that issue.
6. Rather, I find the temporal proximity of the applicant's symptoms and the following events to be compelling:

a) The discussion on 13 October 2021 with Mr Begg regarding student complaints, and the first complaint of psychological symptoms to his GP on 18 October 2021; > > b) The decision to change his teaching level communicated in early December 2021, the disciplinary meeting with Ms Raper shortly thereafter and his significantly greater level of complaints the week after to Mr Kaye compared with reports to his GP; > > c) The notification of an investigation by letter dated 13 January 2022; > > d) Receipt of the "show cause" letter on 10 March 2022 and him going off work.

7. Those events understandably would have been at the least uncomfortable for the applicant and challenged his confidence and self-belief. Dr Moffatt accepted the causal relevance of such events, with particular significance given to the notice of an investigation and the "show cause" letters, albeit described by her as aggravating rather than primarily causative.
8. Dr Blakemore did not attempt to state a firm opinion on causation, but did consider receipt of the letter of 10 March 2022 was a "jolt."
9. For the avoidance of doubt, I therefore find the events I have enumerated in [78] above were wholly or predominantly the cause of the adjustment disorder.

1. That therefore leaves the question as to whether such actions satisfy the requirements of s 7(4).
2. There were a number of witnesses called by the respondent in relation to these actions. At the outset, I must say it did seem apparent to me that in relation to the conflicts between the applicant and the colleague, their sympathies favoured the colleague. However, I find that none of those witnesses sought to mislead me or to do otherwise than their best to assist me in determining the proceedings.
3. As to the meeting of 13 October 2021, very little notice of what was to be raised was provided to the applicant. The applicant complains of a denial of procedural fairness. If the meeting was to be viewed as a formal disciplinary meeting, I consider the applicant's complaint would be justified. However, the casual nature of the meeting invitation and what followed suggests the meeting was designed to be low keyed and without serious consequences at that stage. I would not be prepared to find that meeting unreasonable.
4. As to the change in teaching level, I accept the evidence of Mr Begg that in the face of the clear antagonism between the applicant and the colleague and the need to accommodate a reduction by the applicant to .6, his plan to change the applicant's teaching level was a reasonable option. I do not find the change was for an ulterior purpose or punitive to the applicant.
5. The notification of an investigation and to stay away from the workplace seemed a sensible step while the investigation into the actions of the applicant - and the colleague - took place. The fact that a similar letter was sent to the colleague indicates a balanced and proportionate response to the situation.
6. As to the "show cause" letter, the letter set out the allegations made against the applicant followed an investigation into the complaints against him and his conduct. The letter provided appropriate particulars to enable him to respond, and a warning of the potential consequences if the allegations were found to be established.
7. The applicant complains that the investigation undertaken, which lead to the issuing of that letter, was one-sided and did not involve interviews of those who might be expected to "support" the applicant's complaints against the colleague. But the letter was addressing the conduct of the applicant and whether that conduct was substantiated - not the complaints by the applicant of conduct by the colleague.
8. The applicant also points out the letter postdates the compensation claim, which was made on 1 March 2022. To that extent, the applicant submits, the letter of 10 March 2022 cannot be said to be causative of the injury that was the subject of the claim made.
9. I do not consider proceedings are strictly confined to the terms of the claim as filed. This is especially important with claimed conditions which develop gradually. It would be a triumph of form over substance to dismiss a claim because a different date of injury was found to be correct.
10. Further, the determination made went beyond the circumstances existing as at 21 October 2021, and looked at causative factors thereafter.[34] Additionally, the application for review of that decision lodged on behalf of the applicant in fact states as date of injury 15 March 2022 and asserts:

Date of Injury originally recorded as either 18 or 21 October 2021 based on rough assessment of symptoms by worker with treating doctors. Should properly be deemed under the Act to be 15 March 2022 as the first date on which the worker was incapacitated for work by the claimed injury.[35]

1. I therefore consider the issue is properly before me as to whether the letter of 10 March 2022 can be seen as causative.
2. I find that the applicant has not discharged the onus of proving that the injury did not arise wholly or predominantly from designated actions or decisions. Indeed, I make a positive finding that the injury arose wholly or predominantly from reasonable decisions and actions taken in a reasonable manner.

1. The application for review is dismissed.
2. The decision rejecting the applicant's claim is confirmed.

[1] South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission v Workers Compensation Tribunal (2009) 105 SASR 1; [2009] SASC 213 at [59] per Kourakis J.

[2] [2009] FCA 680 at [47].

[30] Wiegand v Comcare [2002] FCA 1464; South Australia Police v Fielden [2017] SAET 32; Return to Work SA v Brealey and Rullo v Return to Work SA [2017] SAET 133; Fielden v South Australia Police [2018] SAET 86.

[31] Applicant's Outline of Submissions at [57].

[32] Keen v Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Corporation (1998) 71 SASR 42.

[33] Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43; (2016) 258 CLR 467.