1. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are:

(a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents;

(b) respondent's amended reply and attached documents filed 18 June 2025;

(c) respondent's Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 15 August 2025;

(d) respondent's Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 21 October 2025;

(e) applicant's Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 24 November 2025, and

(f) a copy of this Certificate of Determination and attached reasons.

1. Following the issuing of the Medical Assessment Certificate the matter is to be relisted for a further preliminary conference to deal with the balance of the claim.

A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission's reasons for the determination.

1. In this matter the applicant Akoy Deng seeks an award for payment of weekly compensation, lump sum compensation, and payment of medical and related treatment expenses which he alleges are payable by the respondent on the basis that the applicant suffered a psychological injury in the course of his employment.
2. The applicant is 34 years of age and was employed by PSGA Pty Ltd (the respondent) as a security guard commencing his employment with the respondent in or about June 2017.
3. It appears that the applicant carried out his duties as a security guard at various premises where the respondent appears to have provided security services in the Sydney metropolitan area.
4. As pleaded in the Application to Resolve a Dispute (Application) the applicant alleges that he suffered injury as follows:

"The Applicant instructs that during the course of his employment he was bullied and harassed on multiple occasions. As a result, the Applicant has been diagnosed with a psychological injury of Bipolar Mood Disorder with psychotic symptoms with a deemed date of injury of 8 May 2020. The Applicant reports that his employer placed immense pressure on him, and he was working long hours and as a result was under a lot of stress. Further, he reports bullying by colleagues where in one instance, a colleague spread rumours about everyone hating the Applicant and made false allegations against him. This has resulted in our client's incapacity to return to work."[1]

1. The applicant's evidence as to the development of his alleged injury and the cause/s of same are set out in a series of six statements[2] attached to the Application (which are rather unfortunately poorly edited being difficult to follow in terms of the actual chronology and the details of the incidents described therein). On the basis of those statements the chronology, number, and nature of the alleged work incidents is more complicated than the pleading of injury in the application quoted above.
2. The applicant's statement evidence commences with a statement dated 6 March 2024 (but which appears to have been actually signed on 15 March 2024) where the applicant relevantly refers to:

(a) having commenced work with the respondent in June 2017;

(b) not having any pre-existing psychological injuries prior to working for the respondent;

(c) having no history or admission to hospital for illicit drug use or dependency;

(d) having had no problems performing his work duties prior to his alleged injury;

(e) that in October 2018 the respondent introduced a change in policy (presumably for security reasons) whereby security guards were required to satisfy a baseline security clearance to continue to work at Microsoft Data Centres;

(f) as a result of the new security requirements a staff shortage developed as many of the existing guards failed to satisfy the new requirements;

(g) as a consequence of the reduction in staff numbers all full time guards were required to work increased hours (with the applicant asserting that all the guards were required to work 122.5 hours per fortnight);

(h) the applicant asserts that the extra work resulted in a great degree of stress;

(i) as a result of the alleged stress of the extra work having developed paranoia and stress resulting in his hospitalisation on 12 October 2018;

(j) the applicant alleges that he was able to return to work on 15 October 2018;

(k) the applicant further alleges that he continued to work long hours where he was subject to being bullied;

(l) that by November 2019 he noticed that his mental health had deteriorated which was noted as such by others with whom he worked;

(m) on 27 November 2019 the applicant was conducting his first supervisory handover when he was denied the site phone's password, the Wi-Fi password and the site's laptop password by a person identified as Peter Mac;

(n) that on 11 December 2019 he was advised by Peter Mac that a person identified as Benjamin Sewak had been advising others that everyone hated the applicant coming into work late and intoxicated;

(o) on 18 December 2019 the applicant had a conversation with Benjamin Sewak about the allegations made by Peter Mac and was advised by Mr Sewak that no such statement had been made by him which resulted in the applicant feeling confused and that he could not trust anybody;

(p) on 19 November 2019 there was a dispute between the applicant and a supervisor, a Mr Saif Abu-Khadir, with Mr Abu-Khadir alleging that the applicant threw a piece of paper at him;

(q) that a conversation took place on or about 20 December 2019 between the applicant and a person identified as Ghazi Merhab who told the applicant that from then on he would be managed by management and not site leads or supervisors and further that the applicant would be shortly moved to a different site being a "grade 2 security site" where he would be happier.

(r) that on 24 December 2019 he participated in a meeting with a Tania Bateman and an Adam Dimitri where he raised concerns about being bullied harassed and isolated by his colleagues and supervisors;

(s) that he was finally given the Wi-Fi password on 1 January 2020 after asking for same for five weeks and that on the same date he was spoken to by Darren Archer about 30 minute break rotations (it appears that the applicant was concerned by the fact that he was given 30 minute breaks while another employee allegedly had been allowed to take one hour breaks);

(t) on 20 February 2020 he was working on a shift and when relieving a Sanjay Kumar, Mr Kumar advised the applicant that he, Mr Kumar, had been approached by another security guard, Darren Archer, to sign a petition to get the applicant removed from the site. Mr Kumar stated that he had been approached by Mr Archer on 17 December 2020. When asked about the existence of the petition Mr Philip Mac, the applicant's supervisor on the shift on 20 February 2020 denied knowing about same;

(u) having a conversation with his supervisor Darren Archer on 7 March 2020 where Mr Archer spoke to the applicant about transferring the applicant to another site but that being an unlikely event as the other guards at that site ( identified as Syd03) did not want the applicant there, and when challenged by the applicant on the issue Mr Archer had responded describing the applicant as "an idiot and delirious" and a "paranoid employee". The conversation allegedly then involved the applicant threatening to record the conversation, Mr Archer accusing the applicant of not being a team player and that he would like the applicant to "fuck off from Syd27";

(v) having been bullied since 2018;

(w) having been passed over for promotion on around 15 occasions when other employees, who were employed for shorter periods, became supervisors ahead of him;

(x) in particular the applicant having what may be described as a stressful relationship with Saif Abu-Khadir who was initially trained by the applicant and later became the applicant's supervisor. The applicant alleges that Mr Abu-Khadir constantly belittled and swore at the applicant, recorded security breaches or events requiring documentation identified by the applicant on Mr Abu-Khadir's "S.A.R." sheet rather that the applicant's sheet, and required the applicant to have earphones off during shifts even during down time hours amongst other issues;

(y) that he reported the bullying he received from Mr Abu-Khadir to management and nothing was done;

(z) he was paid considerably less than other employees that he was responsible for supervising;

(aa) he was transferred from site to site (albeit without stating when and how often the transfers occurred);

(bb) by May 2020 he was hospitalised at the Nepean Psychiatric Ward for his psychological injury, and

(cc) he resigned his employment with the respondent on 18 May 2020 while under the influence of his medications.

1. Subsequent to his hospitalisation for the effects of his alleged psychological injury the applicant appears to have received treatment for his condition at a community health facility attached to the Nepean Psychiatric Hospital in the period from 2020-21.
2. Further, and although not referred to by the applicant in his statement evidence, he was admitted to the Nepean Hospital Psychiatric ward for in-patient treatment from 2 July 2020 to 17 July 2020 for what is referred to in the clinical records as Bipolar Disorder.[3]
3. Before setting out the further events in the chronology of the applicant's alleged injury and subsequent history I note that it appears clear from the contents of a further statement from the applicant signed 16 September 2024[4] that the applicant worked at a number of different sites while working for the respondent which are variously referred to as Syd03, Syd23, and Syd27 however I am unable to understand or determine precisely how long the applicant worked at each site and with whom.
4. In a further statement dated 26 March 2024 but actually signed on 2 April 2024[5] the applicant states that in February 2022 he commenced a course in Finance and Mortgage Broking at TAFE, apparently dropped the course but reapplied and recommenced same in June 2022 and obtained a Certificate IV in Finance and Mortgage Broking in December 2022.
5. The applicant's statement goes on to state that the course involved him attending a virtual class room three days a week from 9.30am to 2.00-3.00pm on those days.
6. On 12 December 2022 the applicant commenced work as an independent contractor with Aussie Home Loans and during what appears to have been an induction period between December 2022 to January 2023 he attended the office each day for training between 10.00am to 4.00-5.00pm.
7. The applicant further states that after completing his training with Aussie Home Loans in January 2023 he did not work for Aussie Home Loans and had his contract terminated in May 2023.
8. Although not referred to in the various statements made by the applicant found in the application it appears that the applicant was admitted for treatment as an inpatient of the Blacktown City Mental Health Service (presumably part of Blacktown Hospital) on

26 January 2023 and was discharged on 2 February 2023 when he was treated for mental health issues[6]. 9. The applicant states that he did however commence studying law at the University of Notre Dame at some point after January 2023 but states that he discontinued those studies because of problems with concentration and focus and also as a consequence of anxiety he experienced around new people. 10. The applicant asserts that since ceasing his studies with Notre Dame University he has not been able to pursue further studies or employment. 11. In yet a further statement dated 24 April 2024 but signed on 1 May 2024 the applicant states that on 24 March 2024 he travelled to Adelaide following the death of his uncle in South Sudan to visit his uncle's wife and children and then travelled to South Sudan, returning to Australia in late April 2024. 12. The applicant gave notice of injury by way of a Workers Compensation Claim form dated 22 July 2020.[7] 13. Attached to the Workers Compensation Claim form were medical certificates from a Dr Nazeen Hasan which referred to a diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood. 14. From the material before me it appears that the respondent accepted provisional liability and commenced payment of workers compensation benefits while undertaking investigation of the applicant's claim and arranging for a medical examination of the applicant. 15. The respondent subsequently issued a notice under s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) dated 5 July 2021 (s 78 notice)[8] denying liability on the basis that the applicant had not suffered an injury withing the meaning of s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), that employment was not a substantial contributing factor to the applicant's alleged injury within the meaning of s 9A of the 1987 Act and that accordingly there was no liability for weekly payments or payment of medical and related expenses as any incapacity or need for medical treatment had not resulted from an injury as required by ss 33,59 and 60 of the 1987 Act. 16. More specifically the s 78 notice asserted:

"We are not satisfied that the events you allege to have caused a psychological injury were real events".[9]

"Further, we arranged for you to be examined by Psychiatrist and Independent Medical Examiner, Dr Tanveer Ahmed. In reports dated 21 December 2020 and 9 June 2021, the doctor opined that you suffer a much more serious illness than adjustment disorder and that you may have an underlying diagnosis of schizophrenia or a psychotic depression. Dr Ahmed stated that it is unlikely that employment was the substantial contributing factor to your condition. The doctor stated that you have marked underlying vulnerabilities and a strong family history and it was more likely that you were declining due to personal circumstances and loss.

Clinical notes of Blacktown City Mental Health Service indicate that you have experienced psychotic symptoms in the past in approximately 2008. This is consistent with Dr Ahmed's opinion of an underlying condition or vulnerability."[10]

1. By letter dated 19 October 2022 the applicant, via his solicitors gave notice of a claim for lump sum compensation on the basis that he suffered from a whole person impairment of 22% as a result of his alleged psychological injury.[11]
2. The respondent issued a further notice under s 78 of the 1998 Act in response to the claim for lump sum compensation dated 23 January 2023 (the second s 78 notice) denying liability for the claimed lump sum compensation.
3. In the second s 78 notice the respondent confirmed that it continued to rely upon the grounds for denial of liability set out in the s 78 notice and further noted as follows:

"Dr Ahmed reported that psychiatric diagnoses often become clearer over time and at the time of his recent assessment, he was confident your diagnosis satisfied that of bipolar disorder.

While it was accepted by Dr Ahmed that you suffered a psychiatric illness, he did not support any causal connection between your condition and your employment."[12]

1. The second s 78 notice also denied liability on the following basis:

"Further, even if you are found to have sustained a compensable psychological injury (which is denied), Dr Ahmed made an assessment of impairment that fell below the required threshold under section 65A of the 1987 Act."[13]

1. Following the denials of liability by the respondent the applicant appears to have commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) in matter number W3635/24 which were discontinued for reasons that are unclear to me.
2. The current proceedings being matter number W5207/25 were filed in the Commission on 12 May 2025 and came before me for a Preliminary Conference on 16 June 2025.
3. At the preliminary conference the matter was not capable of resolution and was listed for an all day conciliation/arbitration hearing on 21 August 2025.
4. I note that in addition to listing the matter for a conciliation/arbitration hearing the respondent was given leave to issue a number of directions for production, the respondent was directed to refile the attachments to the reply with the documents being renumbered and the index to same being amended so that the documents and the index corresponded. In addition the respondent was directed to file a wages schedule if it disputed the applicant's assertions as to pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) and current work capacity from time to time.
5. It was also indicated that leave for cross examination of witnesses may be sought at the hearing.
6. The conciliation/arbitration hearing did not proceed on 21 August 2025 because the applicant had very recently been admitted as an in-patient at a Mental Health Unit and was unavailable for the hearing.
7. The matter was relisted for a further preliminary conference on 4 September 2025 at which preliminary conference the matter was relisted for a conciliation/arbitration hearing on 27 October 2025.
8. On 27 October 2025 Mr Bill Loukas of counsel appeared on behalf of the applicant instructed by Monaco Solicitors and Mr Joshua Beran of counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent instructed by Hall and Wilcox Lawyers.
9. During the conciliation phase efforts were made to resolve the matter and counsel then sought my consent to a course of action whereby settlement negotiations could continue over the next few weeks. In the event same were unsuccessful the parties would then file written submissions in accordance with a timetable set by the Commission with the matter then to be determined on the papers.
10. It was confirmed that no application would be pressed for cross examination of the applicant or any other witnesses who had provided statements in the matter.
11. Unfortunately it appears that the attempts to resolve the matter proved unsuccessful and the parties have filed written submissions in accordance with the timetable.

1. The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:

(a) whether the applicant suffered a psychological injury arising out of or in the course of his employment to which his employment was the main contributing factor within the meaning of s 4(b) of the 1987 Act;

(b) if the applicant suffered a psychological injury whether the applicant has an entitlement to payment of weekly compensation benefits as a consequence of incapacity resulting from such injury and if so to what extent and in respect of which periods;

(c) if the applicant suffered a psychological injury whether he suffers from a whole person impairment as a consequence of that injury and if so to what extent, and

(d) if the applicant does suffer from whole person impairment as a consequence of a psychological injury is that impairment of sufficient degree to give rise to an entitlement to lump sum compensation and if so in what amount.

1. I note that while technically in dispute there appears to be no dispute that the applicant would be entitled to an award for payment of medical and related expenses in the event that it is found that he suffered a psychological injury within the meaning of the 1987 Act.

1. I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

1. The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and considered in making this determination:

(a) the Application;

(b) respondent's Reply and attached documents (Reply);

(c) respondent's amended Reply and attached documents filed 18 June 2025 (amended Reply);

(d) respondent's wages schedule dated 8 July 2025 (respondent's wages schedule);

(e) respondent's Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 15 August 2025 (ALAD 1);

(f) respondent's Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 21October 2025 (ALAD 2);

(g) applicant's Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 24 November 2025 (ALAD 3), and

(h) respondent's second wages schedule dated 10 December 2025 (respondent's wages schedule 2).

1. I note that while the respondent has filed two wages schedules the second schedule filed actually increases the calculation of the applicant's PIAWE and I will assume represents what the respondent asserts is a more accurate calculation of the PIAWE figure and the indexed increases for the period of the claim.
2. I further note that no objection has been taken by either party to the various Applications to Lodge Additional Documents and accordingly same are admitted into evidence as being relevant to the issues in dispute and likely to assist in a just and fair resolution of the issues in dispute.

1. As has been noted this matter proceeded on the basis that the submissions of both the applicant and respondent would be reduced to writing.
2. Those written submissions are on and form part of the Commission's file and accordingly I will not provide a detailed summary of same but will briefly outline the thrust of the submissions of each party and will thereafter refer to same as and when necessary in these reasons.
3. The applicant has filed written submissions and written submissions in reply on 24 November 2025 and 19 December 2025.
4. The thrust of the applicant's submissions is that the applicant suffers from a Bipolar Mood disorder that was either caused or aggravated, accelerated, exacerbated or deteriorated as a consequence of events that occurred in the workplace.
5. Mr Loukas specifically notes that the s.78 notice dated 5 July 2021 denying liability did so on the basis that the respondent was:

"...not satisfied with the events you allege to have caused a psychological injury were real events."

1. Mr Loukas went on to argue that the events complained of by the applicant as occurring at work and causing him injury were in fact real events and even if misperceived by the applicant such a perception would satisfy the test of injury within the meaning of the legislation.
2. On Mr Loukas's submissions this was not a case of the applicant having imagined events that had not occurred.
3. Mr Loukas at [11] and [12] of his submissions states that there is a strong line of authority that enables a worker to establish that the worker has suffered a work-related psychological injury based on the worker's perception of events noting that there is an "eggshell psyche" principle that employers take their employees as they find them. Further there was no requirement at law that the worker's perception of events must have been one that passed some qualitative test based on an "objective measure of reasonableness".
4. Mr Loukas referred to two decisions of Deputy President Roche in Attorney General's Department v K[14] and Lindsay v IMB Ltd[15] in support of his submissions.
5. Mr Hart in his written submissions accepted that the statement of the law set out by Mr Loukas in his submissions at [11] and [12] was correct.
6. Mr Hart however otherwise submitted that the applicant could not argue that he suffered an injury in the nature of a disease or alternatively an injury in the nature of an aggravation of an existing disease and rely upon the evidence such as to cause me to feel an "actual persuasion" that the applicant had sustained either a s 4(b)(i) or a s 4(b)(ii) injury at work with the respondent.
7. Mr Hart points to a number of inconsistencies or omissions in the applicant's evidence and deficiencies in histories to the medical witnesses relied upon by the applicant to cast doubt upon the weight and reliability of the evidence relied upon by the applicant.
8. As I understand those submissions they essentially involve an assertion that the applicant suffers from a pre-existing illness of a bipolar disorder and was exhibiting signs and symptoms of that disorder well before any claimed work injury and that the evidence does not establish that the applicant's employment was the main contributing factor to the contraction of the Bipolar Disorder nor to any aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of same.
9. At this stage I note that while somewhat differing concepts apply to "aggravation", "acceleration", "exacerbation" or "deterioration" for the purposes of s.4(b)(ii) of the 1987Act in this particular case the medical witnesses have tended to refer to "aggravation" with Mr Loukas referring to aggravation and exacerbation in his submissions in reply. I propose to simply use the word "aggravation" as encompassing both aggravation and exacerbation for the purposes of these reasons.
10. I note that both counsel made submissions in relation to the issue of work capacity and entitlements to weekly compensation in the event that I find the applicant suffered an injury within the meaning of ss 4(b)(i) or (ii) of the 1987 Act however given there is also a lump sum compensation claim involved and to avoid the risk of inconsistent awards[16] I do not propose to determine the weekly compensation claim until the lump sum compensation claim had been determined by an Approved Medical Specialist.

1. The applicant relies upon specialist medical reports prepared by Dr Richa Rastogi (the applicant's treating psychiatrist) and Dr Ben Teoh (a specialist psychiatrist qualified as in Independent Medical Examiner by the applicant).
2. The applicant has also relied upon the medical records of Rope Crossings Medical Centre, Bankstown Hospital, Nepean Hospital and Dr Rastogi together with various Certificates of capacity in support of his claim.
3. Dr Rastogi has been the applicant's treating psychiatrist since 5 May 2022 and has provided a medical report in the proceedings dated 28 July 2023.
4. Dr Rastogi set out the following history of injury in his medical report of 28 July 2023:

"He worked as a security guard for PGSA since 2017. He reported that he was working long hours, from 40-60 hours a week. He had worked at Macquarie Park for two years. He was posted to different locations, and he worked at Eastern Creek from 2019 to January 2020. He stated there was high turnover of staff all the time and there were work pressures and impartial treatment.

He had to work in a 'hot environment' and wear ear masks because of the loud noise. Mr Deng noticed that new staff were promoted over him. He was working for a few years and was never offered a promotion and hence approached his manager what he needed to do to get a promotion. He reported that following this, his manager started to micromanage and target him developing a dislike towards him. He was transferred to Eastern Creek. He said that his supervisor, Saif, yelled at him and belittled him, humiliated him, and criticised him. He felt unwelcomed and raised his grievances to management and HR. There was a mediation meeting at the head office in November 2019 with the regional manager where his grievances were dismissed and he was blamed for short comings as his manager denied any of grievances he had raised. This led to more micromanagement and in January 2020, he was refused the Wi-Fi password. He felt humiliated, trapped with anxiety, helpless and his self-worth plummeted working in hostile work environment.

In May 2020, he developed a psychotic episode where he felt paranoid, watched, and had referential ideation with thought disorder and impaired judgement. This culminated into hospital admission at Nepean Hospital Psychiatric Unit for two days. He was diagnosed with a Bipolar Type 2 Disorder.

He handed his resignation on 8 May 2020. He recalled that he was experiencing paranoid delusions. He felt that everyone was against him, even his family. He was treated with antipsychotic medication, Olanzapine, which was not helpful. He neglected to care for himself, he was showering and brushing his teeth only weekly. He lost interest and motivation in his usual activities.

He had another admission to Nepean Hospital with Bipolar Type 2 disorder and treated with Invega depot and Valproate. He reported psychotic symptoms with disorientation to reality, illusive thoughts, referential thoughts, and persecutory delusions that were sudden onset in June 2020. He believed his family was after him and he had issues of trust. He was admitted involuntary on first two occasions. He was on Seroquel, but his symptoms were not remitted. He felt lethargic and felt depressed and had Lexapro and this triggered manic episode. He had relapse and admitted to hospital. He had his third admission on voluntary basis in 2021 and he was on medications at that time. He reported suicidal thoughts and commenced on Invega depot and was on CTO indicating history of noncompliance. The CTO lapsed in 2022 and he stopped medications on volition. He stated that over the last six months he denied any psychotic symptoms or mood disorder. He stated that medications made him a zombie and hence he stopped it."[17]

1. In terms of past history Dr Rastogi recorded the following:

"Mr Deng has no past history of psychiatric illness.

He stated he had a DUI in January 2020 but denied any history of current alcohol abuse and minimised his alcohol abuse. He has been on alcohol interlock programme. He denied history of any other recreational drug abuse.

He is the third of six children. His father worked as a teacher's aide, and for the United Nations. His mother has been working as an aged care worker. He had lived in a refugee camp for five years prior to coming to Australia. He migrated from Sudan with his family when he was six years old.

There is family history of alcohol abuse in his father."[18]

1. Dr Rastogi provided the following comments under the heading "Diagnosis/Opinion":

"Bipolar Type 2 disorder with psychotic features in partial remission.

He is vulnerable and still has mild paranoid ideation and fears.

His employment is the main contributing factor to his psychological injury. The psychological barriers have led to poor functional outcomes and vocational impediments. He has reached maximum medical improvement given intensive pharmacotherapy."[19]

1. Dr Rastogi also provided the following comment in relation to a question (posed by the applicant's solicitors) on causation of the alleged psychological injury:

"His employment was a substantial contributing factor to your client's psychological injuries and the main contributing factor to the aggravation and deterioration."[20]

1. I do not find Dr Rastogi's opinion to be as helpful as one would expect from a report from a treating specialist.
2. Leaving aside clear deficiencies in history (which are quite appropriately raised in the respondent's written submissions) the doctor's opinion on causation is nothing more than a bare ipse dixit with no reasoning for the opinion being apparent.
3. Further Dr Rastogi's opinion on causation as quoted above at point 65 unfortunately, (no doubt as a consequence of the form of the question posed by the applicant's solicitor which was being responded to by Dr Rastogi in his report), conflates a number of different concepts namely (a) whether the applicant suffered a psychological injury within the meaning of s 4(a) of the 1987 Act to which the applicant's employment was a substantial contributing factor (b) whether the applicant suffered a psychological injury in the nature of a disease to which the employment was the main contributing factor in the contraction of the disease within the meaning of s 4(b)(i) of the 1987 Act or (c) whether the applicant suffered a psychological injury in the nature of the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a disease to which the applicant's employment was the main contributing factor to any such aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the disease within the meaning of s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act.
4. Given my concerns I find the opinions of Dr Rastogi as set out in the report dated 28 July 2023 to be of limited weight.
5. This view is reinforced when consideration is given to a report of Dr Rastogi dated 5 May 2022 addressed to Dr Asif Alam Sazaad which was prepared following the referral of the applicant to Dr Rastogi for treatment. (I note that these matters are also referred to by Mr Hart in his submissions.)
6. That report details a history of the applicant having had two admissions in Nepean Hospital with Bipolar Type 2 disorder with Dr Rastogi noting "The trigger to these admissions were [sic] not clear."[21]
7. In that report Dr Rastogi further recorded a history of the applicant having psychotic symptoms of "sudden onset in June 2020" and that the applicant had "Lexapro and this triggered manic episode".[22]
8. Dr Rastogi's subsequent report dated 28 July 2023 (referred to above) fails to deal with the significance, if any, of the applicant failing to identify a trigger for his admissions to hospital nor to the significance ,if any, of the reported link between the applicant taking Lexapro and the triggering of a manic episode both of which were referred to in the report to Dr Sazaad.
9. I note that there is also a difference in diagnosis between the report to Dr Sazaad dated 5 May 2022 and the report dated 28 July 2023 in that the earlier report refers to a diagnosis of Bipolar disorder Type 1 and in the later report to a diagnosis of Bipolar Type 2 disorder. It is unclear to me whether the first report contains a typographical error (given that the diagnosis of a Bipolar Type 2 disorder is made by others) or whether there has been a change in diagnosis of any significance.
10. Before considering the other medical evidence in the matter I note that while Dr Rastogi's consultation notes appear to be very much "short form" records she does record on the applicant's second treatment consultation on 28 July 2022 where (in a fairly rough form) the following history is recorded:

"He initiated EC claim in may 2020 and accepted in August 2020 and liability accepted till July 2021 and denied foillwing report for Dr amed. He worerkd for Pgsa, security company but working at Microsoft datt centre form 2017 till 2020. during that time he suffereddsicrimation and his pormortion wa simpeded and obstructed despite his hard work he felt micromanaged, controlled in 2019 and this led to sever and insomnia. he resigend in may 2020 and was using methampethamien and this culminating into psychotic episode."[23]

1. The notation referred to in point 75 above confirms that the applicant was reporting distress at work as a consequence of discrimination, lack of promotion despite his hard work and micromanagement and control with that distress being associated with insomnia.
2. I note however that the history is recorded over two years after the applicant ceased work with the respondent so it is not really a contemporaneous report and has less weight than if it was contemporaneous with the alleged events of injury.
3. I also note the reference in the notes to methamphetamine use which is not referred to in Dr Rastogi's report of 28 July 2023.
4. The notes from Ropes Crossing Medical Practice, the applicant's treating general practice, commence with notes of an attendance on 30 July 2019.
5. The second attendance recorded is one on 7 May 2020 where the applicant was seeking treatment for back pain which the applicant appears to have related to his work with the respondent on the basis of a lot of sitting and the use of an inappropriately sized chair.[24]
6. There is no mention in the notes of that attendance of any mental health issues nor of any history of work-related stressors. (I note that Mr Hart's submissions record a similar observation/)
7. However I note that the next entry made only three days later on 10 May 2020 was of an attendance on the applicant who was feeling "sad depressed" with poor sleep. The notes further record at that attendance a history of "work stress".[25] There is no other stressor identified in that attendance.
8. The applicant was then treated at the practice on 11 May 2020, 12 May 2020, 13 May 2020, 15 May 2020, 19 May 2020, 21 May 2020, 25 May 2020 and 9 June 2020 mainly for mental health issues.[26]
9. In those further attendances no additional stressors are identified other than having requested an STI check[27] (which was subsequent to the first report of mental health issues on 10 May 2020) and a reference to a history of the applicant's father having passed away a few years previously in a consultation on 21 May 2020.[28]
10. From the entries in the notes of Ropes Crossing Medical Practice and other evidence in the case it is apparent that on or about 12 May 2020 the applicant was treated for mental health issues at Nepean Hospital.
11. A discharge summary relating to a subsequent admission that occurred on 29 May 2020 through to 16 June 2020 recorded that at the time of the admission on 12 May 2020 the applicant stated:

"Believes he is being discriminated against at his workplace (works as a security guard) and workers staring at him."[29]

1. In a detailed record that appears to be dated 3 June 2020 and prepared during the admission to Nepean Hospital between 29 May 2020 and 16 June 2020 the following history is recorded:

"First onset of depressive symptoms last year Nov 2019

since beginning of 2019, feels being bullied at work, racism felt reportedly

he has been in the security job role for quite sometime with his employer over the last 2 years

some new employees joined after him around 13 of them and they were promoted to higher jobs on different occasions

he was not promoted and he asked his supervisor and management regarding this

his management reportedly tried to make his job at workplace more difficult for him

he reckons they did this so that he could quit his job

they relocated his job at a remote workplace to a very isolated site

he had to do 12 hour shifts at this place, night shifts mostly

he tried to accustom to this workplace for about 3 months between Nov 2019 to Jan 2020

he started to feel very stressed about his work, future and arrangements by his employer at that time

he used to reportedly cope with everything by socializing with friends/family and going to the gym during his days off in the week

when covid pandemic began, he found himself more isolated, no option to socialize or go to the gym

he felt he was having low mood, overwhelming anxiety and depressive feelings over all these months

one morning he woke up from his sleep and saw snapchat messages from 3 years ago

he felt like covid has been happening for last 3 years

he further felt paranoid against his family members and thinking his own mum is fake

his brothers were at home at that time not working, he felt his family was making him work deliberately and had persecutory feelings against them

he was aggressive towards his brothers and they called the police at his home

police called the ambulance to take him to hospital for a mental health assessment

around this time he went to his GP, his GP commenced him on Lexapro for depression

he had been taking Lexapro when he went to Nepean TAC for a psych assessment

he was advised to cease Lexapro and commence olanzapine

he felt quite energetic, elated, felt like he was Jesus Christ, he was overspending out of character and was being very impulsive, having erratic thoughts

he felt this was induced by both Lexapro and olanzapine

he stopped taking both these tablets after a week of presenting to Nepean

he took sertraline from about 18 May and started to feel 'better and back to normal'

he increased the dose to 100mg by himself after researching on the internet

then he was worried about long term side effects and decreased libido, hence continued only 50mg mane daily thereafter

he has not taken any olanzapine or Lexapro since the last 3 weeks

he now feels completely back to normal."[30]

1. The history referred to above clearly provides a fairly contemporaneous record with the applicant's ceasing work and undergoing treatment in May 2020 of the applicant identifying a number of work stressors having been present prior to the onset of the applicant's symptoms including being bullied at work, transferred to isolated sites, feeling social isolation, being overlooked for promotion and working long 12 hour shifts.
2. I note that the applicant seemed to regard himself as having returned to normal as at the date of that consultation.
3. Subsequent to his discharge from Nepean Hospital in June 2020 the applicant appears to have been admitted to mental health units on approximately four subsequent occasions including a most recent admission on 2 July 2025 through to 17 July 2025.
4. In his statement evidence the applicant claims that he first developed symptoms as a consequence of his work on 12 October 2018 and was hospitalised at Westmead Hospital at that time.[31]
5. The assertion of a work injury in respect of the admission to Westmead Hospital on 12 October 2018 is simply incorrect.
6. The applicant was seen by Dr Assad Saboor on referral from Dr Gobinda Das on 15 October 2018 which was three days after the admission to Westmead Hospital.
7. Dr Saboor provided a report dated 15 October 2018 which confirmed a presentation with depressive symptoms and a recent history of having used MDMA leading to experiencing psychotic symptoms which had resolved.[32] Dr Saboor also recorded a history of MDMA use and a diagnosis of Mild to Moderate Depression, Substance Use Disorder and a Recent episode of Drug Induced Psychosis currently in full remission.
8. There is nothing in that report that is consistent with a work induced psychotic episode in October 2018 as claimed by the applicant in his statement evidence.
9. I consider the misleading nature of the applicant's statement evidence as to the cause of the October 2018 admission as reflecting badly on his credit as a witness of truth.
10. In his statement evidence the applicant also asserted that prior to his alleged injury on 8 May 2020 while working for the respondent he was in good health and did not have any pre-existing psychological injuries nor any history of admission for drug use or dependency.[33]
11. As noted earlier in these reasons the applicant also gave Dr Rastogi a history of no past history of psychiatric illness nor of any recreational drug abuse other than a reference to a "DUI" in January 2020.[34]
12. Leaving aside the inconsistencies between those assertions and the fact that the applicant had suffered a psychotic episode in October 2018 as a consequence of the use of an illicit drug and that he had been diagnosed with a Substance Use Disorder there is in evidence a hand written document prepared by the applicant setting out details of his life references inter alia, the applicant having suffered the trauma of civil war and being a refugee, the applicant having been the victim of and exposed to sexual abuse as a child, the applicant describing himself as indulging in sadistic behaviour with insects and animals as a child, the applicant attempting suicide as a child aged 10-12, the applicant having been depressed at school and requiring counselling, the applicant cutting himself around 10 times without the school nurse reporting his self-harming behaviour, and the applicant having been involved in incidents of violence resulting in his arrest and being charged in relation thereto.[35]
13. That document clearly details numerous psychological traumas or injuries and details what appear to be significant psychiatric problems in relation to depression and self-described sadistic behaviour.
14. The accuracy of that document has not been contested by the applicant in any statement subsequent to the filing of the reply by the respondent.
15. The contrast between the events detailed in the applicant's handwritten document and the statement evidence again reflects badly on the applicant's credit.
16. In terms of the qualified medical evidence the applicant has relied upon the opinion of Dr Ben Hooi-Beng Teoh as set out in his medical report dated 17 October 2022 and his supplementary reports dated 18 April 2024 and 16 August 2024.
17. In the report of 17 October 2022 Dr Teoh recorded the following relevant history:

"Mr Deng is a 31 year old security guard living with his mother and four siblings in Ropes Crossing.

He had worked at Macquarie Park for two years. He was posted to different locations, and he worked at Eastern Creek from 2019 to January 2020.

He reported that he was working long hours, from 40-60 hours a week, from 2017 to 2019. He had to work in a 'hot environment' and wear ear masks because of the loud noise. He said there was a high turnover of staff.

Mr Deng noticed that new staff were promoted over him. He had asked his manager what he needed to do to get a promotion.

He reported that following his enquiry, the manager started to micromanage him. The manager constantly checked on him and tested him. He said that the manager made his life 'difficult'.

He was transferred to Eastern Creek. He said that his supervisor, Saif, yelled at him and belittled him. He was unfairly criticized.

He had complained to management. He said that there was a conciliation meeting at the head office in November 2019, involving the regional manager. He said that all his complaints were dismissed - he was made to feel he was making things up. He said that the issues were not resolved. He said that Saif denied everything, and the micromanagement got worse.

In January 2020, he was refused the WiFi password. He was unfairly treated and he felt that he was victimized.

In May 2020, he developed a 'stress-induced psychosis'. His thinking process and perception were altered. He was hosptialized at the Nepean Hospital Psychiatric Unit for two days. He was told that he was suffering from a Bipolar Type 2 Disorder.

He handed his resignation on 8 May 2020."[36]

1. Under the heading "BACKGROUND" Dr Teoh recorded:

"Mr Deng has no past history of psychiatric illness.

He migrated from Sudan with his family when he was six years old. He is the third of six children.

His father worked as a teacher's aide, and for the United Nations. His mother has been working as an aged care worker.

He had lived in a refugee camp for five years prior to coming to Australia. There is no family history of psychiatric illness.

He admitted that from May 2020 to October 2020, he was drinking and smoking heavily."[37]

1. Dr Teoh diagnosed the applicant as suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder with psychotic symptoms.[38]
2. In relation to causation of that condition Dr Teoh stated:

"His condition is caused by bullying, harassment, and unfair treatment with his employment as a security officer".[39]

1. That report of Dr Teoh suffers from the problem of an inadequate or inaccurate history - there is no mention of the applicant's hospitalization for psychosis in October 2018, there is no record of the applicant's problems with depression at school, no record of attempted suicide as a child, no mention of self-harming behaviours, no mention of the applicant having been the subject of sexual assault as child, no mention of being charged with assault or being involved in violent incidents in Australia, no mention of having been charged with and convicted for a "DUI" (presumably a prescribed concentration of alcohol (PCA) offence) in early 2020 amongst many omissions of significant life stressors or illness that are apparent from other material before me.
2. I note Mr Hart's submits that the opinion of Dr Teoh cannot be considered to have been provided in a "fair climate".
3. Although Dr Teoh has provided an assessment of whole person impairment of 22% in that report I note that (leaving everything else aside in terms of the assessment) Dr Teoh has provided that assessment while stating that "There is no requirement for a deduction for a pre-existing psychiatric condition".[40]
4. Given the clear evidence of previous psychiatric problems (as noted in these reasons and recorded in the evidentiary material) that statement would appear to be incorrect however I do note that any assessment of whole person impairment and any deduction for pre-existing conditions is a matter for a Medical Assessor.
5. The Psychiatric Impairment Rating section of the report dealing with "Social and Recreational Activities" refers to the applicant not being able to get the "accident" out of his mind despite there being no event of an "accident" involved.[41]
6. The Psychiatric Impairment Rating section dealing with "Social Functioning" refers to "a strained relationship"[42] with no other reference to a relationship in the body of the report and with the paragraph itself not referring to any statement or other evidence of same.
7. In my view the report of Dr Teoh dated 17 October 2022 has significant flaws being based on what appears to be inaccurate or incomplete history, expressing an opinion on causation that is not explained, providing assessments of impairment that refer to events that had not occurred (accident) or to problems for which no evidence is referred to (relationship).
8. Accordingly appropriate weight will be given to the report and its opinions having regard to the concerns noted.
9. Dr Teoh's first supplementary report is dated 18 April 2024 refers to him having reviewed the applicant's statement dated 26 March 2024 and stating that having done so the report remains unchanged.
10. The applicant's statement of 26 March 2024[43] refers to the applicant's history of study in 2022, completion of a Certificate IV in Finance and Mortgage Broking and the applicant's work with Aussie Home Loans.
11. The applicant's statement of 26 March 2024 has no relevance to issues of causation and Dr Teoh's opinion in relation thereto.
12. Dr Teoh's second supplementary report is dated 16 August 2024 and appears to have been prepared after Dr Teoh was referred a number of medical reports prepared by Dr Tanveer Ahmed dated 21 December 2020, 8 June 2021 and 9 December 2021 for consideration and was asked two questions which are reproduced in Dr Teoh's report of 16 August 2024.
13. The first question addressed by Dr Teoh in is report is reproduced by Dr Teoh in the following form:

"Can you please confirm your opinion as to whether our client's workplace was a substantial contributing factor to our client's psychological injuries; or the main contributing factor to the aggravation, deterioration, acceleration or exacerbation of a pre-existing condition; Please explain."[44]

1. Before dealing with Dr Teoh's response I would like to note that the form of the question is particularly unhelpful in the context of a case where the allegation is of a disease injury with a deemed date of injury.
2. The first part of the question asks "whether our client's workplace was a substantial contributing factor to our client's psychological injuries" which question appears to address an issue under s 9A of the 1987 Act which requires employment to be a substantial contributing factor to an injury.
3. A disease injury is dealt with under s 4(b)(i) and/or s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act which sections impose a more stringent test that employment be the main contributing factor to the contraction of the disease [s.4(b)(i)] or the main contributing factor to the aggravation, deterioration, acceleration or exacerbation of the disease [s 4(b)(ii)].
4. Accordingly the question posed by the applicant's solicitor did not address the issue of causation of a disease injury within the meaning of s 4(b)(i) and any comment about employment being a substantial contributing factor to injury is of limited relevance.
5. Dr Teoh's response was in the following terms:

"It is my opinion that Mr Deng's workplace is a substantial contributing factor to his psychiatric diagnosis of a Bipolar Mood Disorder.

He had an acute episode in 2018, related to his work-related stress, and subsequent relapse in 2020.

Mr Deng has vulnerability factors. It is my opinion that his work-related stress has aggravated his psychiatric condition."[45]

1. The response is of limited assistance because, firstly, it has an incorrect history of the cause of the 2018 acute episode, secondly because it is unclear whether Dr Teoh is saying that the workplace was a substantial contributing factor to the cause of the Bipolar Mood Disorder or is a contributing factor to an existing condition and thirdly he does not state whether in his opinion the applicant's employment was the main contributing factor to an aggravation of the applicant's psychiatric condition.
2. The second question posed and answered by Dr Teoh is reproduced in Dr Teoh's supplementary report as follows:

"Your opinion on Dr Ahmed's reports dated 21 December 2020, 9 June 2021 and 9 December 2022 and his comment on diagnosis and causation."[46]

"I have read the reports prepared by Dr Tanveer Ahmed.

I agree with Dr Ahmed that Mr Deng has 'marked underlying vulnerabilities and a strong family history. The history of his parent's [sic] separation, father's death, and drug induced psychosis are contributing factors to his psychiatric condition.

I believe that his work-related stress has aggravated his psychiatric condition.

It is likely that he was feeling mentally unwell at work due to his mood disorder, and psychosis. However, his report of working long hours in a stressful environment, and the lack of support by management, have aggravated his psychiatric condition."[47]

1. From that response it is my view that Dr Teoh has essentially arrived at an opinion that the applicant has a pre-existing condition that was probably manifesting itself at work but which was aggravated by workplace events.
2. Certainly that view was based on a much more detailed history of the applicant's condition and other relevant material which had been absent when Dr Teoh was expressing his opinion in the earlier reports.
3. I note that it is disappointing that the response to the first question posed included the incorrect history of the 2018 incident being caused by work stress while the second response clearly showed that Dr Teoh was aware of the drug induced psychotic incident and referred to same in his opinion in that response.
4. The respondent has relied upon the medical opinion of Dr Tanveer Ahmed, psychiatrist which is contained in a number of medical reports.
5. The first report in time was provided to the workers compensation insurer and is dated 21 December 2020 and as submitted by Mr Hart is the first specialist report in time either from the applicant or the respondent.
6. Dr Ahmed recorded the following history:

"Mr Deng is a 29 year old single man living with his family which include a mother and four siblings. His father died a few years ago after he moved back to Sudan. The parents separated approximately four years ago. Mr Deng had never married and had no children. He had not worked since March 2019.

This was his account, although from the insurer's correspondence, it said he resigned in May 2020.

The client worked for Securitas, which is a security firm. He had been in the job for three years. He said he had worked full time. He said his job was usually at data centres at Eastern Creek and at Macquarie Park. He said he usually sat on the desk and often dealt with IT technicians requiring services.

When asked about his difficulties, he said he felt discriminated against regarding promotion. He also remembers an incident where colleagues were talking about black women which he attributed as discriminatory.

I note from the correspondence that he was unable to provide any documentation regarding his complaints, he was offered mediation and did not attend.

The correspondence from Nepean Hospital in May 2020 states that he felt discriminated against because other workers were staring at him. The assessment also notes ideas of preference and persecution.

The claimant was placed on psychotropic medications including a mood stabiliser and anti-psychotics. He was on a different antipsychotic Olanzapine and that has since been changed to Aripiprazole. There was also a prior presentation at Westmead in 2018 having presented with drug-induced psychosis, having used ecstasy.

Other history includes that he was getting increasingly interested in religion. He says his parents are Christian. At the time of his admission to Nepean he was reading widely, including the Quran and the Bible. He also stated that COVID was a conspiracy created by the government.

He is currently closely involved with the local community health service and case-managed.

He spent his time often sleeping. He ruminated about past work events. He says he feels flattened by the medication. He is struggling with motivation.

Other important history also includes his father being diagnosed with mental illness, I am not entirely sure what this was, but it may have been a psychotic illness.

He also lost his licence in January this year after a driving under the influence charge."[48]

1. Under a separate heading "Relevant Personal and Development History" Dr Ahmed recorded the following:

"The claimant was born in South Sudan. His father was also a security guard but a teacher in Sudan. Mr Akoy spent much of his early life in a refugee camp in Kenya. He was the second oldest child of 4. The family migrated to Australia when he was 6. They lived in Adelaide for several years before coming to Sydney. He reported an unremarkable schooling. He was able to complete year 12. He said he was good at history. He used to play basketball with his friends but has not for a couple of years. He says he has a handful of good friends usually of African origin, primarily Sudanese or Nigerian. He noted the Nigerians were a little bit different because they had not gone through civil war. He said they tended to be more relaxed and comfortable.

Other important history included a drug and alcohol history where he had occasionally used ecstasy in past years. He denied problems with alcohol but says he has a few drinks from time to time. I note the DUI charge, already mentioned.

He denies any other medical problems but notes he had grommets in his ears taken out several years ago."[49]

1. While the history obtained by Dr Ahmed is more comprehensive than those recorded by Doctors Rastogi and Teoh it is to be noted that it still lacked many significant items - for instance (and without purporting to note all omissions) there is no history given of being treated for depression at school, there is no mention of attempting suicide as a child, there is no mention of the unhappiness experienced as a border at school, there is no mention of his self-described sadistic behaviour with animals, there is no mention of being sexually assaulted as a child in a refugee camp, there is no mention of being charged by the police in Canberra, there is no mention of being involved in a violent incident in Parramatta, there is no mention of working long hours for the respondent in a hot and noisy environment, there is no mention of the applicant's complaints of being micromanaged at work and so on. All of those incidents or events are referred to in other documents referred to earlier in these reasons.
2. Dr Ahmed expressed the view that:

"Mr Deng suffers a much more serious illness than Adjustment Disorder. He may have an underlying diagnosis of schizophrenia or a psychotic depression. This is related in the correspondence from the public hospital. He also has a prior presentation of drug-induced psychosis in 2018."[50]

1. I note that the diagnosis of schizophrenia is not otherwise made by any other specialist who has provided a report in the matter. In fairness to Dr Ahmed that is a matter dealt with in his supplementary reports.
2. Dr Ahmed does describe the applicant as having a serious illness.
3. In terms of causation of the applicant's illness Dr Ahmed made the following comments of relevance:

"It is unlikely that employment is a substantial contributing factor. Mr Deng has marked underlying vulnerabilities and a strong family history. It was more likely that he was declining after his parents' separation, further worsened by his father's death in Sudan. Thereafter he became increasingly paranoid about co-workers, which is a contributor to his perceptions of discrimination."[51]

1. In response to a question recorded in the report in the following terms "Are you aware of any factors outside of the workplace that may be contributing to Akoy's current presentation", Dr Ahmed replied: "Yes his parents' separation and father's death are significant contributors."[52]
2. Given that the applicant's parents had separated in 2012/13[53] and that the applicant had commenced employment with the respondent in 2017 working up until May 2020 I find the suggestion that the separation of the applicant's parents eight years earlier as being a significant factor in the onset of symptoms in May 2020 as being a major factor in that onset somewhat unconvincing given the range of other traumatic events in the applicant's life.
3. Similarly the death of a long absent parent three and a half years prior[54] to the onset of symptoms in May 2020 as being a significant factor in that onset of symptoms is somewhat unconvincing.
4. However I do note that Dr Ahmed appears by those responses to accept that life events would impact on the applicant's psychological health.
5. Dr Ahmed's first supplementary report is dated 9 June 2021 where he responds to some questions posed by the insurer of the respondent.
6. Those responses confirm that Dr Ahmed was of the view that the applicant had an underlying psychotic illness, possibly schizophrenia (but that the diagnosis would become clearer over time) and that employment was not the substantial contributing factor to the illness.[55]
7. Dr Ahmed's next report in time is dated 9 December 2022 and in part is in response to the applicant's claim for lump sum compensation.
8. In that report Dr Ahmed acknowledges having reviewed a range of written material including statement evidence, medical reports of doctors Rastogi and Teoh, and a range of medical records from hospitals and mental health services attended by the applicant.[56] Dr Ahmed also sets out details of the applicant's medical progress since he was last seen by Dr Ahmed.[57]
9. Dr Ahmed does not seem to have obtained any further history from the applicant himself about events prior to onset of symptoms in May 2020.
10. Dr Ahmed set out the following comments under the heading "Diagnosis"

"It is reasonable to consider his diagnosis to be either bipolar disorder or possibly a schizoaffective disorder. He does have a history of marked psychotic symptoms to the point where he required depot injections and a community treatment order. This is consistent with a bipolar disorder where manic psychosis is a feature. It may also be part of a schizoaffective illness. It is now largely treated, and he has stabilised.

He does indeed have a psychological disorder, although it has considerably stabilized.

I note in the past the most likely diagnosis was a schizophrenia-like illness. This also coincided with a period when he was using drugs sporadically and was clearly tied to a public community health facility.

He was much more unstable during this period and has since stabilised. Psychiatric diagnoses often become clearer over a period of time, and I am largely comfortable that there is a reasonable likelihood that he satisfies the criteria for a bipolar disorder".[58]

1. As noted Dr Ahmed expressed the view that the applicant's condition had considerably stabilized and assessed the applicant as having a 5% whole person impairment.
2. Dr Ahmed confirmed his view in relation to causation had not changed.
3. In a further supplementary report dated 12 January 2023 Dr Ahmed confirmed his opinion that the applicant had a 5% whole person impairment which was unrelated to any work injury.[59]

1. As noted the applicant has provided a range of statements dated 6 March 2024,

26 March 2024, 24 April 2024, 29 May 2024, 16 September 2024 and 16 April 2025. 2. The relevant parts of the chronology of events set out in those statements is summarised or referred to earlier in these reasons. 3. As I have noted earlier when referring the medical evidence in the matter much of the statement evidence of the applicant is inaccurate (for instance in relation to the cause of the psychotic episode in October 2018) or omits relevant history (such as the applicant's history of depression, attempted suicide as a child and self-harming behaviours). 4. I have significant reservations as to the credibility of the applicant's evidence as a consequence of those inaccuracies or omissions and will give appropriate weight to that evidence as a consequence. 5. Attached to the amended reply is a statement signed by the Applicant dated

24 December 2019 that records a number of events of some relevance which may be noted as follows: * the applicant had difficulty working with a Jeff Melvin because Mr Melvin was very controlling. Mr Melvin had apparently started work with the respondent in early 2019; * he had an incident of conflict with a Jonathon Cutjar; * he describes difficulties working with Saif Abu Khabar [sic] (I believe he is referring to Saif Abu Khadir), and * he was unhappy about not being promoted to supervisor.[60] 6. Attached to the Amended reply is also a copy of a letter dated 6 May 2020 sent by the applicant to Thea Emetlis (apparently the senior vice president of Human Resources (HR) at the respondent) which in a lengthy document providing details about what is described as bullying and mistreatment at the site described as Syd27 which occurred from November 2019 on. 7. Given the date of the letter (immediately coincident with the applicant requiring hospitalisation) I give it limited weight however a number of complaints are recorded that are repeated in other documentation including: * the applicant not being given passwords to laptops and Wi-Fi; * the applicant's work chair not being adjusted; * the applicant being only given 30 minute meal breaks; * an incident of conflict with Darren Archer, and * lack of promotion to supervisory shifts.[61] 8. Also attached to the Amended reply is a further letter from the applicant to Penny Parker and Alex Grayson dated 29 June 2020[62] which in my view does not greatly assist the matter further with many of the complaints made in other statements and histories being re-visited at a time when the applicant had ceased work and commenced treatment almost eight weeks later 9. The applicant also relies upon the statement evidence of a number of witnesses. 10. His sibling Chol Deng has provided a statement dated 20 March 2024 which confirms a deterioration in the applicant's mental health and having been made aware by the applicant of what was claimed to be bullying at work being overlooked for promotion, and to not being provided with the site WIFI password. Mr Chol Deng also referred to being aware from his own experience of Mr Jeff Melvin instituting a policy at work preventing family members working on the same shift which both the applicant and Chol Deng regarding as bullying.[63] 11. The applicant's mother Awaak Gak Akoy has provided a statement dated 12 March 2024 which sets out a history of the applicant's mental health having declined in the months leading up to May 2020.[64] The witness states that prior to then (May 2020 and the months leading up) he exhibited good mental health which is clearly incorrect given the other evidence before me. Nonetheless the witness does confirm a deterioration in the period immediately prior to May 2020. 12. Awaak Gak Akoy provided a further statement dated 25 April 2025 (but apparently signed on 28 April 2025). 13. In that statement Ms Akoy asserted (inter alia) that: * before October 2018 she had not noticed any issues with the applicant's mental health; * he had a good childhood and did not have any pre-existing mental health issues as a child or teenager; * he did not experience any trauma as a child; * he had not seen or experienced any struggles as a child in Kenya; * when they moved from Adelaide to Sydney he adjusted quickly and made new friends at his primary and secondary schools; * that the applicant was extremely stressed from his work from November 2018; * that she suggested to the applicant in November 2019 that he leave his job with the respondent; * that he informed her in November 2018 that he was being targeted in the workplace, and * that he was first hospitalised in May 2018 for a severe psychotic episode due to a work related injury.[65] 14. Given the contents of the applicant's own hand-written statement and the medical evidence referred to earlier it is clear that much of the content of Ms Akoy's statement dated 25 April 2025 is incorrect. 15. The applicant obviously had a traumatic childhood living in a refugee camp with limited food where he almost died on a number of occasions due to malnutrition, that his parents had to flee the first camp on foot, that the Kenyan refugee camp had terrible sanitation with food in short supply, that while there he was forced into a sexual act by another older boy, that he felt alienation from his peers at school in Adelaide, that his father was a "borderline alcoholic", he was involved in abuse of pet animals, that he was unhappy at secondary school, that he attempted suicide and self harmed amongst many examples of traumatic events.[66] 16. Further the evidence establishes that the admission to Westmead Hospital for a psychotic episode in October 2018 followed the use of a drug and was not the consequence of workplace stress. 17. The impression created by the content Ms Akoy's statement of 25 April 2025 is of someone trying to assist the applicant's case rather than someone providing an honest statement of events. I consider the statement to be of little or no weight because of its clearly partisan and inaccurate nature. 18. The applicant also relies upon a statement from a Teddy Doyle dated 4 June 2024 but apparently signed 3 June 2024. 19. Mr Doyle appears to be both a friend and work colleague of the applicant. 20. Mr Doyle states that he and the applicant were required to work long hours while waiting on their "baseline clearance" and were not told about the availability of hotel accommodation available to security staff. Mr Doyle confirms that the applicant did work extremely long hours on occasion, in a noisy environment and in high temperatures. Mr Doyle also says that the mental condition of the applicant appeared to suddenly deteriorate (unfortunately without stating when that occurred).[67] 21. The respondent has relied upon a number of witness statements from supervisors of the applicant some of which are referenced in the submissions of Mr Beran for the respondent. 22. Mr Darren Archer has provided a statement dated 20 March 2021 where he confirms that he was originally a co-worker with the applicant as a screening officer/guard but had become the applicant's supervisor in November 2019. 23. Mr Archer confirms that the applicant started working for the respondent before him and was apparently a somewhat difficult employee who, in Mr Archer's view was transferred from site to site when matters became too difficult.[68] 24. Mr Archer confirms that the applicant was not given a Wi-Fi password when he commenced work at the site identified as Syd27 but that nobody other than supervisors were supposed to have same as it prevented workers getting online/social media while on shifts. 25. Mr Archer also confirms that the applicant received 30 minute breaks but that arrangement applied to all screening officers. 26. Mr Archer states that the applicant had issues with Site Leaders at all sites where he worked and that once Mr Archer was promoted to a position as a Site Leader the applicant became rude and dismissive towards him. 27. Mr Archer describes the applicant as:

"...quite paranoid and thinks everyone is out to get him; he tries to make it is a racist issue but none of the issues he has had with any employee have been race related; it is all about his own behaviour and conduct."[69]

1. Mr Archer denies a number of allegations made by the applicant about their personal interactions such as telling the applicant that the guards at Syd03 did not want him there, telling the applicant he was not a team player and not offering overtime shifts, telling the applicant to f##k from Syd27, yelling at him at a checkpoint, swearing to the applicant in a hallway about being absent from a checkpoint, and so forth.[70]
2. Mr Archer commented that:

"No one wanted to work with him at the sites because they knew how he was; you could tell he had mental issues; his thought processes and outlook on things was not normal."[71]

1. Mr Saif Abu Khadir has provided a statement dated 30 March 2021.
2. Mr Khadir confirms that he has known the applicant for four years and was initially a co-worker but subsequently was promoted to supervisor.
3. Mr Khadir confirms that the applicant was spoken to about how to adjust his chair at work.
4. Mr Khadir's statement is of limited use but he does confirm that the applicant was "very hard to please".[72]
5. A Mr Ghazi Merhab has provided an unsigned statement dated 31 March 2021 where he confirms that he was a site supervisor of the applicant having initially worked with the applicant as a screening officer for approximately two years.
6. When asked whether the applicant had ever raised any workplace concerns or grievances during his employment Mr Merhab stated:

"The only concern was why he wasn't promoted to a Supervisor; he spoke to me one day when I was doing a day shift at Syd27 as a supervisor. I told him personally I would not recommend him to be a shift supervisor because he was always late or he would drop shifts at a last minute and I told him that."[73]

1. Mr Merhab confirms that the applicant was unhappy about not being provided with the Wi-Fi password.
2. Mr Merhab also confirmed that the applicant was involved in a change in time for work breaks.
3. Mr Merhab also confirmed that the applicant was:

"...always complaining about so many things, he could not work with any Supervisor".[74]

1. Given the fact that the statement is unsigned I consider it to have very limited weight but the document purports to be a record of a statement obtained by the insurer of the respondent covering what Mr Merhab had to say about the applicant's employment and alleged injury.
2. Similarly the respondent has included as one of the documents relied upon by that party an unsigned statement of a Phillip Mac dated 1 April 2021.
3. In his statement Mr Mac confirms that he was a supervisor of the applicant on a number of occasions but for only a short time.
4. Mr Mac statement confirms that the applicant appears to have been unhappy about the fact that he had not been provided with a Wi-Fi password and that the applicant had been instructed to keep his chair upright.
5. Mr Mac also confirmed that the applicant was unhappy about the change in length of his work breaks.
6. Mr Mac is recorded as saying that in relation to Mr Deng's behaviour while at work:

"He was always the same; like he had multiple personalities; he would be happy one day and really nice and sometimes aggressive another day."[75]

1. When asked about whether he was aware of any events or issues outside of the workplace that may be contributing to the applicant's condition Mr Mac is recorded as replying in the negative.
2. As an unsigned statement the document must be of very limited weight however it has been included by the respondent in its reply and has been relied upon by Mr Hart in his submissions as he also did with the unsigned statement of Mr Merhab. Mr Hart did not dispute the accuracy of the contents of either statement.
3. The respondent has also relied upon a statement of Saif Abu Khadir dated 28 March 2023.
4. Mr Khadir states that he initially worked as a Security Officer with the applicant but then was promoted to a Supervisor role at another site where he supervised a couple of shifts of the applicant's work.
5. Mr Khadir's statement is of limited value given his short period of time of working with the applicant however he does confirm that:

"Everyone I know who worked with Akoy, even at other sites had an issue working with him. He was always complaining about something and he was often late for his shift and he is someone who would get easily offended. You could not talk to him."[76]

1. The final lay witness statement relied upon by the respondent is a statement from a Mr Yusuf Ozturk dated 27 June 2024[77].
2. Mr Ozturk confirms having been the applicant's site supervisor in 2017.
3. Mr Ozturk disputes that the applicant was required to work excessive overtime of more than 122.5 hours per fortnight in October 2018 due to the requirement to get baseline clearances.
4. Mr Ozturk does however confirm that security guards could be working 120 hours per fortnight.
5. Mr Ozturk also disputes that the applicant was working in 35 degree heat but does accept that heat would come out of the building where the servers were.
6. Mr Ozturk further states that he does not know what shifts the applicant was working in late 2018 or early 2019.
7. Mr Ozturk also confirms that the applicant was difficult to work with and that "there were always issues about him".[78]

1. The applicant has pleaded his case as a disease injury relying on both s 4(b)(i) and s 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act.
2. Section 4(b) of the 1987 Act is in the following terms:

(i) a disease that is contracted by a worker in the course of employment but only if the employment was the main contributing factor to contracting the disease, and

(ii) the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration in the course of employment of any disease, but only if the employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the disease."

1. Mr Hart in his submissions appears to take issue with the approach by the applicant in arguing an injury either under s 4(b)(i) or s 4(b)(ii) stating that the applicant is seeking to have "a bet both ways".
2. In my view there is nothing improper about that approach to the case by the applicant particularly having regard to the expert medical opinion evidence of both Drs Rastogi and Teoh discussed below.
3. In terms of medical diagnosis it is my view that the medical evidence is almost overwhelmingly to the effect that the applicant suffers from a Bipolar Mood Disorder.
4. That is the diagnosis of the treating psychiatrist Dr Rastogi. It is the diagnosis of Dr Teoh and its is the diagnosis (after initially considering a different diagnosis of a schizoaffective disorder) of Dr Ahmed.
5. The notes of Nepean Hospital and Blacktown Hospital also refer to a diagnosis of a Bipolar Disorder.
6. It is also clear that the condition is a serious one that has resulted in the applicant having been hospitalized approximately seven times since May 2020 for treatment necessitated as a consequence of that condition.
7. The applicant's case is that the Bipolar Mood disorder was either contracted in the course of employment [s 4(b)(i)] or alternatively that the condition was aggravated, accelerated, exacerbated or deteriorated in the course of the applicant's employment [s4(b)(ii)].
8. It is also necessary that the applicant's employment was the "main contributing factor" to either the contraction of the disease or the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the disease.
9. As noted earlier both Dr Rastogi and Dr Teoh were asked to answer a question as part of their expert medical reports covering the applicant and his condition.
10. Dr Rastogi was asked:

"Your opinion as to whether our client's employment was a substantial contributing factor to our client's psychological injuries, or the main contributing factor to the aggravation, deterioration, acceleration, and/or exacerbation of our client's psychological injuries?"[79]

1. The form of the question posed to Dr Rastogi did not even raise a question that addressed the test under s 4(b)(i) of the 1987 Act rather it raised an issue that would be relevant to an allegation of injury under s 4(a) and s 9A of the 1987 Act namely "substantial contributing factor" and then raised an issue under s 4(b)(ii).
2. As I commented earlier in these reasons I did not find Dr Rastogi's response to be particularly helpful.
3. A similar problem arises with regard to the opinion of Dr Teoh who was asked the following question:

"Can you please confirm your opinion as to whether our client's workplace was a substantial contributing factor to our client's psychological injuries; or the main contributing factor to the aggravation, deterioration, acceleration and/or exacerbation of a pre-existing condition;"[80]

1. Again the question posed to the doctor conflates the test of injury under two separate subsections of the 1987 Act and produced a somewhat (and understandably so) confused response in the following terms:

"It is my opinion that Mr Deng's workplace is a substantial contributing factor to his psychiatric diagnosis of a Bipolar Mood Disorder.

He had an acute episode in 2018, related to his work-related stress, and subsequent relapse in 2020.

Mr Deng has vulnerability factors. It is my opinion that his work related stress has aggravated his psychiatric condition."[81]

1. Given the form of the questions posed to both Dr Rastogi and Dr Teoh and the responses given to those questions by the doctors it was reasonable for the applicant to allege injury under both limbs of s 4(b) of the 1987 Act.
2. Dr Ahmed as expressed the view that the applicant's employment was highly unlikely to be a substantial contributing factor to the applicant's psychological condition and that it is "more likely that he was already becoming unwell throughout the period of his employment".[82]
3. In my view the opinion evidence of the applicant's doctors cannot support a finding of injury within the meaning of s 4(b)(i) of the 1987 Act given the form of the opinion evidence, even leaving aside the other evidence in relation to the existence and cause of the applicant's condition prior to starting work with the respondent.
4. In my view the totality of the evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that the applicant had a traumatic and disturbed childhood and adolescence with the applicant developing depression and disturbed behaviours and had developed a Bipolar Mood disorder before commencing work with the respondent.
5. At the time he started work with the respondent and while working there he exhibited odd and difficult behaviours that his fellow workers found difficult and alienating which resulted in them reacting adversely to him. That view is consistent with the content of the lay witness statements referred to earlier.
6. Despite those odd and difficult behaviours the applicant was able to work from 2017 through to May 2020 performing his work as a security guard.
7. In October 2018 the applicant's mental condition appears to have deteriorated into an incident of acute psychosis when the applicant took drugs resulting in hospitalization.
8. Despite the applicant's later statements to the contrary there is no contemporary documentation implicating events at work as a cause of the psychotic episode in October 2018 and on the balance of probabilities I am not satisfied that the psychosis in October 2018 was precipitated wholly or in part by events arising in or out of the course of the applicant's employment with the respondent.
9. In my view the evidence clearly establishes that the applicant over time became more and more distressed by a number of events at work.
10. Of particular importance in my view is that both the applicant's evidence and the statement evidence of the lay witnesses confirm that the applicant was unhappy about the fact that he failed to be promoted when others who started at the same time as him or who started after him were promoted into supervisory roles.
11. The applicant appears to have regarded the absence of promotion as being discrimination or bullying behaviour directed at him personally.
12. Further the evidence of both the applicant and various lay witnesses confirm that the applicant was unhappy about being denied access to Wi-Fi passwords at the sites where he worked and was also unhappy about not being given access to the work laptop computer.
13. The applicant appears to have considered the non-provision of the Wi-Fi passwords and laptop access as being directed at him personally.
14. I accept that there were sound commercial reasons for the respondent to restrict access to the passwords and laptop and that conduct was not directed at the applicant personally however it is the case that those were actual events that occurred in the applicant's employment even if his response to same was a misperception of the motivation for same.
15. Similarly there were changes in the length of time allowed for work breaks that affected the applicant which he again seems to have perceived as constituting some sort of attack on him.
16. There is no dispute in the evidence that the length of the breaks were changed with management of the respondent restricting same to 30 minutes in length and that instruction appears to also been perceived by the applicant as something directed at him personally.
17. Similar observations can be made about the applicant's complaints about being directed to sit on a chair in a particular way - the applicant may perceive it as bullying behaviour by the employer but it was probably a reasonable direction on work health and safety grounds that actually occurred.
18. It is also the case that the evidence establishes that other workers found the applicant difficult to work with and that there were personality clashes at work between the applicant and his supervisors and co-workers.
19. In terms of the actual physical work environment the applicant has asserted that the work environment was very hot and that he had to work long hours.
20. That evidence is supported by Mr Teddy Doyle.
21. Mr Yusuf Ozturk disputed the applicant's estimate of 35 degree heat but did confirm that the servers in the building did generate heat that was ameliorated by a vent near where the security guards sat.
22. No other witnesses disputed the applicant's assertions that the work environment was hot.
23. In my view on the balance of probabilities I accept that the work environment was hot without needing to find that it was at a level of 35 degrees as asserted by the applicant.
24. Mr Ozturk also disputed the applicant's assertions of working long hours of 122.5 hours a fortnight but did accept that security guards did work up to 120 hours per fortnight which equates to around 60 hours per week - on any view of it that amount of work would constitute long work hours.
25. No other witness has disputed the applicant's assertions of working long hours and I find on the balance of probabilities that the applicant did work long hours.
26. As I have noted at point 89 the records of Nepean Hospital dated 3 June 2020 record a detailed history of the onset of the applicant's symptoms with the applicant stating that he was feeling highly stressed at work, felt bullied at work, that other workers had been promoted ahead of him, that management had made his workplace more difficult, and that he was working long shifts.
27. Further those notes record the applicant giving a history of onset of depressive symptoms commencing in November 2019.
28. The history also records the applicant having low mood, overwhelming anxiety and depressive feelings for months (presumably following the onset of same in November 2019).
29. Other than a reference to taking MDMA in February 2020 there is no other stressor noted until the applicant appears to have started to manifest severe symptoms of disturbed behaviour immediately prior to his admission waking up from his sleep, seeing a Snapchat message about COVID and feeling paranoid about his family members.
30. The Nepean Hospital notes were prepared at time when the applicant was acutely ill and prior to workers compensation involvement and in my view it is probable that they accurately record what lead up to the applicant's hospitalisation in May 2020.
31. As noted Dr Ahmed has ultimately agreed that the applicant probably suffers a Bipolar Disorder and that the applicant was "becoming unwell throughout the period of his employment and was presenting as paranoid and anxious within the workplace."[83]
32. That is consistent with my finding that on the balance of probabilities the applicant suffers from a Bipolar Disorder.
33. Dr Ahmed expresses the view that the applicant's employment was not the substantial contributing factor to the "psychological disorder" (as per the question posed by the respondent's solicitors).[84] However in my view Dr Ahmed's opinion does not really deal with the issue as to whether the applicant's employment aggravated the condition.
34. I also note that Dr Ahmed quite clearly appears to accept that life events could have aggravated the applicant's Bipolar Disorder with him specifically referencing the separation of the applicant's parents and the death of the applicant's father.
35. One further point to be made in relation to Dr Ahmed's opinion is that at no stage does Dr Ahmed appear to receive a detailed history of workplace events or properly refer to the very detailed history in the Nepean Hospital notes discussed above.
36. Dr Teoh ultimately expresses a view that comments on Dr Ahmed's reports in the following terms:

"I agree with Dr Ahmed that Mr Deng has 'marked underlying vulnerabilities and a strong family history'. The history of his parent's separation, father's death, and drug induced psychosis are contributing factors to his psychiatric condition.

I believe that his work-related stress has aggravated his psychiatric condition.

It is likely that he was feeling mentally unwell at work due to his mood disorder, and psychosis. However, his report of working long hours in a stressful environment, and the lack of support by management, have aggravated his psychiatric condition."[85]

1. I accept that final opinion of Dr Teoh as being essentially correct.
2. As I have noted the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the applicant was distressed by work events and interactions as detailed.
3. The applicant gives a history of his condition starting to worsen in November 2019 and progressively worsening up to May 2020 when it became acute.
4. The records of Nepean Hospital appear to identify the work stressors as almost the entirety of the stressors between November 2019 and May 2020 and do not refer to any stressors other than work between the incident of psychosis in October 2018 (following taking drugs), and the onset of worsening symptoms in November 2019.
5. Dr Teoh states that those work stressors would have aggravated the applicant's psychiatric condition and that is consistent with the evidence of the occurrence of events leading up to the applicant's acute symptoms in May 2020.
6. In my view this is classically a case where "there is a relevant aggravation or exacerbation of the disease if the symptoms and restrictions emanating from it have increased and become more serious".[86]
7. On the balance of probabilities I find that the applicant suffered an aggravation of his underlying bipolar mood disorder as a consequence of events that occurred in the course of his employment that were real events even if misperceived by the applicant.
8. Given that no other significant stressor is noted at the time the applicant's condition started worsening in November 2019 I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the applicant's employment was the main contributing factor to that aggravation and continued to be so up to May 2020.
9. I note that while Dr Teoh's opinion as cited at point 263 does not specifically state that the applicant's employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation or exacerbation of the applicant's bipolar disorder it is settled law in my view that:

"That a doctor does not address the ultimate legal question to be decided is not fatal (Guthrie v Spence [2009] NSWCA 369; 78 NSWLR 225 AT [194] to [199] and [203]). In the Commission an Arbitrator must determine, having regard to the whole of the evidence, the issue of injury, and whether employment is the main contributing factor to the injury."[87]

Accordingly I have considered the whole of the evidence in coming to my finding that on the balance of probabilities the applicant's employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation or deterioration of the applicant's bipolar disorder.

1. The deemed date of injury is the date of incapacity namely 8 May 2020.
2. Given that I have made a finding of a psychological injury and given that the applicant has made a claim for lump sum compensation the matter needs to be remitted for assessment of the applicant's whole person impairment as a consequence of that injury.
3. It is inappropriate in my view to determine the claims for weekly benefits and payment of medical and related expenses before the Medical Assessment Certificate is available.
4. This is particularly the case in this matter as I must confess to having some concerns as to whether the applicant's subsequent psychotic episodes, admissions to hospital and ongoing treatment result from the aggravation of the applicant's condition in the course of his employment or whether those episodes, admissions and need for treatment are the consequence of the progress of, or manifestation of the underlying Bipolar Mood disorder.
5. In that regard I note the apparent improvement in the applicant's condition whereby he was able to complete his course in Finance and Mortgage Broking in 2022 and look at commencing a law degree in 2023 before his condition again deteriorated.
6. Similarly I note the onset of severe symptoms requiring hospitalisation in 2025 some five years after the applicant had ceased work with the respondent.
7. Accordingly, and consistently with the reasoning of Deputy President Roche in Jaffarie v Quality Castings Pty Ltd to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings I will remit the matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor with the matter to be relisted for a further preliminary conference after the Medical Assessment Certificate has issued.

1. The applicant suffers from a disease injury in the nature of an aggravation of a Bipolar mood disorder to which his employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation.
2. The matter is to be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor and to be relisted for a further preliminary conference following the issuing of a Medical Assessment Certificate to deal with the balance of the claim.

[3] Amended reply pp 237-336 (it is to be noted that the actual numeration of the documents in the original Reply was incorrect and the reference numbers used in this decision are those shown in the attachments to the Application to Lodge Additional Documents filed by the respondent dated 18 June 2025 attaching the Amended Reply and its attached and renumbered documents and this approach will be adopted whenever referencing documents that may have been attached to the Reply).

[14] [2010] NSWWCCPD 76.

[15] [2019] NSWWCCPD 7.

[16] See Jaffarie v Quality Castings Pty Ltd [2014] NSWWCCPD 79.

[86] Per Burke CCJ in Cant v The Catholic School's Office [2000] 20NSWCCR 88.

[87] Per Roche DP in State Transit Authority of New South Wales v El Achi [2015] NSWWCCPD 71 at [72].