1. This matter is remitted back to a Member following the provision of the Medical Assessment Certificate, or any appeal therefrom, to determine the outstanding claims for weekly payments of compensation and medical expenses.

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

1. The applicant in these proceedings, Jason Vassallo, claims that he sustained a psychological injury while employed as a police officer with the NSW Police Force, with a deemed date of injury of 8 June 2022.
2. The applicant claims that he sustained psychological injury by being exposed to traumatic incidents while working as a police officer, by being assaulted and threatened and verbally abused while performing his role as a police officer, by being falsely accused of allegations which he perceived to amount to targeting and bullying, and by there being a lack of support from the respondent.
3. The applicant ceased work on 8 June 2022 and has not worked since then. The applicant was paid weekly payments of compensation until 8 September 2022. EML issued a dispute notice on behalf of the respondent on 8 September 2022 wherein liability was disputed on the grounds that the psychological injury sustained by the applicant was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken by the respondent with respect to transfer, discipline, promotion, performance appraisal and/or provision of employments benefits pursuant to s 11A (1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
4. The Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) includes claims for weekly payments of compensation, the payment of medical expenses and a lump sum payment for 22% whole person impairment (WPI). The parties agreed at the commencement of the hearing that if the respondent is not successful in its s 11A defence then the claim for weekly payments of compensation and medical expenses will be deferred until a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) is issued by the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) for the WPI claim.
5. The respondent confirmed at a preliminary conference conducted on 11 February 2025 that the only category within s 11A which is relied upon by the respondent is 'discipline'.

1. The parties agree that the following issue remains in dispute for the hearing which was conducted on 8 April 2025:

(a) whether the psychological injury sustained by the was predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by the respondent with respect to discipline (s 11A (1) of the 1987 Act).

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

1. The parties attended a conference and hearing on 8 April 2025. 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.
2. Mr Joseph appeared for the applicant, instructed by Ms Sellars. Mr Gaitanis appeared for the respondent, instructed by Mr Lott.

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

(a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents (with the exception of the reports of Dr Bommasani dated 5 September 2022 and 13 October 2022) ;

(b) Reply with attached documents (with the exception of the reports of Dr Bommasani dated 5 September 2022 and 13 October 2022);

(c) Application to Lodge Additional Documents filed by the respondent on 24 February 2025;

(d) Application to Lodge Additional Documents filed by the applicant on 25 February 2025;

(e) Application to Lodge Additional Documents filed by the applicant on 1 April 2025, and

(f) Application to Lodge Additional Documents filed by the respondent on 1 April 2025.

1. There was no application to adduce oral evidence, or cross examine the applicant or any other witnesses who have provided written statements.

1. The applicant has provided statements dated 11 August 2022, 1 December 2022,

18 September 2023, 18 June 2024, and 2 February 2025. 2. The first statement provided by the applicant was prepared by an investigator retained on behalf of the respondent. The applicant states that he was attested as a police officer in 2009 and was stationed at Bankstown Police Station until December 2017. He states that he then transferred to Police Transport and Public Safety Command until he ceased work with the respondent. 3. The applicant refers to several incidents during his employment with the respondent which caused the applicant to believe that he was not supported by the respondent and that he was being bullied and harassed:

(a) being placed on restricted duties for about 18 months during his period of employment at Bankstown Police Station while a complaint made against him by a family member was investigated, and which the Professional Standards Command ultimately found was a complaint which could not be sustained;

(b) having himself and his family threatened on several occasions while working at Bankstown Police Station by a person whom the applicant was investigating for a serious assault;

(c) being placed on an Interim Risk Management Plan for several months in 2019 and 2020 while two internal complaints against him were investigated, but which the applicant considered to be based on false accusations by other police officers;

(d) being under the supervision of a junior officer while being placed on that Interim Risk Management Plan, which caused the applicant to feel embarrassed and humiliated;

(e) finding out that charges were withdrawn against a person who had assaulted the applicant while the applicant was undertaking his policing duties, and

(f) being the subject of an investigation in regard to the applicant having secondary employment, but which was ultimately found not to be sustained.

1. However, the applicant states in his first statement which is made two months after he stopped work due to his injury:

"The main issue that has brought me to where I am today is the issue surrounding my increment and my progression through the ranks as a Police Officer."

1. The applicant states that he had completed ten years of service with the respondent by

8 May 2019 and he was issued with the epaulettes of two chevrons and a bar indicating those ten years of service. However, the applicant was told by Acting Inspector Harvey Sauran on 12 October 2020 that the epaulettes had to be removed because the applicant was not at a rank which allowed him to wear them. 2. The applicant states that he was not provided with a reason as to why he could not wear the epaulettes confirming ten years of service. He states that he made his own enquiries and ascertained that his incremental progression had been deferred by 1,090 days due to his failure to sit an IT test in 2014. The applicant states that he completed the test in August 2018 when he was informed that this test was a mandatory requirement for further advancement within the NSW Police Force. 3. The applicant states that he sought the assistance of the Police Association regarding the deferral of an increment and written submissions were eventually made by the Association to the respondent in March 2022. He states that Superintendent Bradbury replied with a one page response to those submissions in a letter dated 11 April 2022, which did not identify any of the issues which needed to be addressed. 4. The applicant states that in late April 2022 he attended for a night shift at work when he felt stressed and emotionally upset, and he could not talk because he was crying and shaking. He states that the supervising sergeant advised him to go home because he was not in any condition to complete his duties. 5. The applicant states that he had about 11 days away from work, during which time he "felt emotionally depressed over the whole increment issue." 6. The applicant states that he spoke with Inspector Cantrell concerning his increment on

8 June 2022. He states that he was still feeling emotionally upset regarding this issue. He states that after the morning briefing on that day:

"I was informed by Superintendent Bradbury that the current complaint which was a Non Criminal Complaint was now turned into a Criminal Complaint. I broke down within this meeting and informed her that I would be leaving due to being emotionally upset and depressed."

1. The applicant states that he attended Dr Malek on 10 June 2022 and was referred to a psychologist and psychiatrist.
2. The applicant states: "Since this has occurred and more so after being off work, I have had visions of suicides that I have attended in my career as a NSW Police Officer" and "I also have visions of fatalities I have attended."
3. The applicant refers to the "many fatalities" he has attended as a police officer in a statement dated 1 December 2022. He also refers to the difficulty he found in delivering the "death message" to the family of the deceased following one such fatality.

1. Harvey Sauran has provided a statement dated 25 August 2022. Mr Sauran states that he is a sergeant with Police Transport Command.
2. Mr Sauran states that he had an "informal discussion" with the applicant on 12 October 2020 wherein the applicant was advised that he could not wear the 10 year epaulettes because the applicant had not completed an exam. Mr Sauran states that the applicant said that he had been told by Assistant Education Officer Rachel Nolan that the applicant could wear the incremental epaulettes because he had completed ten calendar years of service.
3. Mr Sauran states that he contacted Ms Nolan in regard to this and she could not remember saying this to the applicant, but she could not deny it. Mr Sauran states:

"If she had said it, the claimant would have been within his rights to accept what she said due to the position she was in."

1. Mr Sauran states that the applicant was still wearing the incorrect epaulettes when he saw the applicant at a briefing on 9 November 2020. He states that he gave the right epaulettes to the applicant later that day when the applicant approached the admin office.
2. Michael Cantrell has provided a statement dated 26 August 2022. Mr Cantrell states that he is an Inspector at North/Central Police Transport Command. He also states that he is the applicant's welfare officer and regularly enquired about any support required by the applicant.
3. Mr Cantrell states that he was not at a meeting in June 2022 regarding the re-classifying of a complaint about the applicant. However, he states that he had a conversation with the applicant prior to that meeting regarding "the increment issue". He states that the applicant was not happy about how this issue was being dealt with and that he did not feel supported. Mr Cantrell states that he had a good conversation with the applicant and the applicant left the office "in a better mood".
4. Cathryn Bradbury has provided a statement dated 30 August 2022. Ms Bradbury states that she is Superintendent Commander at North/Central Police Transport Command.
5. Ms Bradbury states that she is aware that the applicant was placed on an Interim Risk Management Plan while two complaints regarding the applicant were investigated. She states that this is a standard practice while misconduct matters are investigated and there are several factors which are taken into consideration when such a plan is implemented. Ms Bradbury states that the availability of senior officers means that it is not always possible for the applicant to be placed with a senior officer while placed on such a plan.
6. Ms Bradbury states that she is aware that a person was charged with assaulting the applicant while the applicant was working as a police officer, but that the charge was withdrawn after review by the police prosecutor.
7. Ms Bradbury states that there is another misconduct complaint involving the applicant, but that she cannot disclose the nature of the misconduct as it is still a current complaint. She understands the investigation is being carried out with due protocol.
8. Ms Bradbury states that she is aware that the applicant alleges that he has had an increment unreasonably deferred for 1,090 days. She states that the deferred increment was due to the applicant not completing a computerised assessment test. She states that the onus is on the police officer to attend to this, but that there is advance notice given to an officer and a reminder provided to an officer regarding the test.
9. Ms Bradbury states that she reviewed the original decision to defer the applicant's increment and determined that all policy and procedures were followed, and that this was confirmed by the respondent's industrial lawyers.
10. Ms Bradbury states that the epaulettes for ten years of service are simply provided upon request by a police officer.
11. Ms Bradbury states that the applicant was already aware of a complaint when the two of them met for a meeting in June 2022. She states that she had to advise him that she had

re-classified the complaint from non-criminal to criminal. Ms Bradbury states that the applicant was upset, but that this is normal for people. She states that she explained to him the processes moving forward and told him where he could seek advice and support. Ms Bradbury states that there was an offer to take the applicant to his home, but that the applicant stated that he wanted to drive home.

1. There is a letter from Sergeant Holborrow dated 30 March 2022 which informs the applicant that he is to be the subject of two non-criminal departmental allegations regarding the unreasonable use of force upon a member of the public while in the course of his police duties on 6 March 2022 and the failure by the applicant to create a record of this event. The applicant acknowledges receipt of this letter on 13 April 2022.
2. There is a letter from Sergeant Holborrow dated 8 June 2022 which informs the applicant that he is now the suspect in a criminal offence regarding the alleged assault referred to in the letter of 30 March 2022. The applicant acknowledges receipt of this letter on 6 July 2022.
3. There is also an Interim Risk Management Plan dated 8 June 2022 addressed to the applicant and signed by Superintendent Bradbury which states that the applicant is subject to an internal complaint and which places restrictions on the applicant's police work duties.
4. There is an Incident Report Form completed by the applicant on 17 June 2022 which reports a psychological injury which occurred on 8 June 2022: "In the workplace. Having conversation with Commander and Duty Officer. Became emotional and left the workplace on sick report."
5. There is a Police Medical Officer referral regarding the applicant that is prepared by Christine Woods and dated 27 August 2024. The document refers to the applicant being charged with common assault following an on duty incident on 6 March 2022 and the charges being dismissed in the Local Court in March 2024 after the applicant submitted to an order pursuant to s 14 of the (NSW) Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 to be discharged into the care of his treating doctor. The name of the treating doctor is not identified in that document.

1. There are clinical records in evidence from Grace Medical Centre commencing in August 2016. I could not locate, nor was I directed to, any references to treatment for psychological issues before the applicant attends Dr Malek at that practice on 16 June 2022.
2. There is an entry made in a health assessment by a registered nurse on 8 June 2018 which includes "No stress at work" and "Normal mood".
3. There is an entry made by Dr Hanna on 23 October 2018 which includes "Not depressed", "sleeping well" and "No work issues".
4. The notes recorded by Dr Malek on 16 June 2022 include:

Felt bullied, embarrassed, defamed & humiliated over the last 2.5 years from colleagues & superiors

Had a meltdown in the Commander's office (Superintendent Bradbury) on the morning 8th June 2022

1. The notes from Dr Malek also record the applicant seeing another doctor at Wyong Village Medical Centre on 10 June 2022, and that the applicant attended for an initial consultation with a psychologist on 15 June 2022.
2. There are no clinical records in evidence from Wyong Village Medical Centre.
3. There are clinical records in evidence from Deleean Withers, psychologist, at Your Strengths Psychology. The notes from Ms Withers' initial consultation with the applicant on 15 June 2022 include:

"Haven't being ok for years battling an issue with cops for 2 ½ years they haven't actioned my concern"

"Have internal non-criminal complaint...Last Wednesday now told it is an external criminal complaint"

1. The notes from Dr Malek record a referral to a psychiatrist, Dr Saker, and an appointment arranged for 20 September 2022. However, the applicant states that following liability for his claim being disputed by the respondent he has not been able to see Dr Saker because he has not been in a financial position to attend an appointment.
2. Dr Nagesh, consultant psychiatrist, has provided a report at the request of the applicant's lawyers dated 8 December 2022.
3. Dr Nagesh records that the applicant had been exposed to multiple traumatic incidents during his career as a police officer and provides details of some specific incidents. He writes that the applicant alleges having nightmares and flashbacks because of the cumulative exposure to those traumatic events.
4. Dr Nagesh records that there were a number of internal complaints against the applicant during his employment with the respondent including being falsely accused of illegally accessing the police system, being falsely accused of not creating a report in relation to an inquiry, and being investigated for secondary employment (which was denied by the applicant).
5. Dr Nagesh records that the applicant alleges that "the final straw" was having his increments deferred for three years without being informed of this and receiving no support from the respondent in response to his complaints. Dr Nagesh writes that when the applicant was informed that an internal complaint had been turned into a criminal complaint, this "finally broke the camel's back" and the applicant had to leave work as his alleged symptoms had become worse.
6. Dr Nagesh diagnoses the applicant as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder due to his employment duties with the respondent.
7. Dr Nagesh has provided a supplementary report dated 25 September 2023, wherein he is asked how the applicant's psychological injury has arisen. Dr Nagesh responds:

"In my opinion, your client's injury arose from his cumulative exposure to traumatic events and the lack of support from his management and also the demeaning treatment from your client's supervisors and colleagues including bullying, harassment, criticising and degrading behaviour. My rationale is Mr Vassallo has been exposed to traumatic incidents all through his career with NSW Police Force. He has had symptoms intermittently for many years. However, he had a strong coping style to deal with exposure to traumatic incident, but his coping mechanism broke down due to the lack of support from management and the demeaning treatment from his colleagues and supervisors which was bullying, harassment, criticising and degrading behaviour."

1. Dr Nagesh does appear to alter his diagnosis in this second report to post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder.
2. Dr Brendan Smith, psychiatrist, has provided a report at the request of the respondent's lawyers dated 10 October 2024.
3. Dr Smith records that the applicant acknowledged that he was exposed to a significant number of traumatic events during his career with the respondent, and Dr Smith details three prominent traumatic events.
4. Dr Smith refers to the applicant's first statement dated 11 August 2022 which details several incidents during the course of the applicant's employment which the applicant perceived to involve unfair and unfavourable treatment towards himself by fellow officers.
5. Dr Smith records that the applicant believed his mental health began to noticeably deteriorate in the months leading up to 8 June 2022. He records that the applicant said: "there was no support whatsoever". Dr Smith notes that the applicant was managing an incident regarding a direction to remove his epaulettes in the period leading up to 8 June 2022 and that the applicant received what he perceived to be an inadequate response to this issue in April 2022.
6. Dr Smith records that the applicant was informed on 8 June 2022 that a complaint against him was now going to result in criminal charges and that the applicant experienced an emotional breakdown in response to this and left the workplace and has not returned to work since then.
7. Dr Smith diagnoses the applicant as having a major depressive disorder with features of post-traumatic stress. Dr Smith writes:

"...while it appears that Mr Vassallo does present with a level of symptomatology related to traumatic exposure, the substantial core features of his presentation appear more in keeping with a mood episode and emotional response, as opposed to a trauma condition with associated physiological features of prominent hyperarousal, prominent traumatic reminders and a focus on impact from said traumatic incidents and exposures. I certainly believe that Mr Vassallo has been exposed to significant trauma through his work with the NSW Police Force. However, I believe that, diagnostically, he does not present with post-traumatic stress disorder."

"Having reviewed all of the above, as well as assessing Mr Vassallo, I am satisfied that the predominant cause of Mr Vassallo's psychological disease is related to disciplinary action proposed to be taken by his employer, specifically the criminal charges laid against him on 8 June 2022 and associated disciplinary actions that would result. The chronology of his mental health symptomatology and presentation appears to indicate some impact in the months preceding this date, with subsequent significant deterioration following 8 June 2022."

1. There is also a report from Dr Chan, consultant psychiatrist, dated 28 October 2024, which has been provided to the respondent.
2. Dr Chan records that the applicant felt he was consistently unsupported in jobs which he had to attend, and that he also raised the problem of workplace bullying. She records that the applicant said he should never have been charged with a criminal offence if there was more support provided to him by the respondent.
3. Dr Chan diagnoses the applicant as having a major depressive disorder which has had minimal treatment. She opines that the legal context of the failed workers compensation claim and "an overturned charge" has perpetuated the applicant's symptoms.

A summary of the submissions by the parties to the dispute

1. Mr Gaitanis on behalf of the respondent submits that a common sense approach to the available evidence must lead to the conclusion that the notice given to the applicant of an investigation into a potential assault of a member of the public in April 2022, which then caused the applicant to take some time off work, and the subsequent notice to the applicant on 8 June 2022 that he was to be the subject of a possible criminal offence, which caused the applicant to cease work entirely, is the predominant cause of his psychological injury.
2. Mr Gaitanis submits that the applicant would have been well aware as an officer of the law of the gravity of the notices provided to him in April and June 2022 and this must have been highly stressful for him. He submits that the temporal connection between these events in April and June 2022 and the applicant seeking medical treatment and ceasing work supports a finding that this action taken by the respondent, which is with respect to discipline, is the predominant cause of the applicant's psychological injury.
3. Mr Gaitanis also refers to the applicant having no medical treatment for any psychological problems prior to 8 June 2022, and the applicant making no report of psychological injury to the respondent prior to 8 June 2022, to support his submission that it is the investigation arising from the alleged assault of a member of the public which is the predominant cause of the applicant's psychological injury.
4. Mr Gaitanis submits that the opinion of Dr Smith should be preferred. He submits that the opinion of Dr Smith is evenly balanced in accepting that the applicant does suffer from some symptoms related to traumatic exposure but concluding that the predominant cause of the applicant's psychological injury is the disciplinary action taken on 8 June 2022. Mr Gaitanis submits that this makes sense from an evaluation of the available evidence.
5. Mr Joseph on behalf of the applicant submits that the available evidence supports a finding that there has been a broad range of issues during the applicant's period of employment with the respondent which have contributed to his mental health issues, and it cannot be that the predominant cause of his psychological injury is what occurred around 8 June 2022.
6. Mr Joseph submits that it is not uncommon for police officers to develop psychological problems from exposure to multiple traumatic incidents exposure over a number of years, and this is what has happened to the applicant.

1. The respondent does not dispute that the applicant sustained a psychological injury in the course of his employment as a police officer, although there is a difference of opinion between the psychiatrists who have provided reports relevant to this dispute as to the diagnosis of this psychological injury.
2. Dr Smith diagnoses the applicant as having a major depressive disorder with features of post-traumatic stress. Dr Chan diagnoses a major depressive disorder. Dr Nagesh diagnoses the applicant as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, although he then amends that opinion in his supplementary report to post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder.
3. The denial of the applicant's workers compensation claim by the respondent is based upon

s 11A (1) of the 1987 Act. Section 11A (1) provides:

"No compensation is payable under this Act in respect of an injury that is a psychological injury if the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by, or on behalf of the employer with respect to transfer, demotion, promotion, performance appraisal, discipline, retrenchment or dismissal of workers or provision of employment benefits to workers."

1. The only category within s 11A (1) which is relied upon by the respondent is 'discipline'.
2. It is arguable that events in regard to the applicant wearing epaulettes for 10 years of service and the deferral of the applicant's increment involved actions taken with respect to discipline and the provision of employment benefits. The initial dispute notice dated 8 September 2022 included the deferral of the increment as being part of action taken with respect to five of the eight categories listed in s 11A (1). The next dispute notice dated 18 October 2022 added the wearing of the epaulettes as action taken as part of the s 11A defence.
3. However, Mr Gaitanis in his submissions at the hearing limited the action taken with respect to discipline to the events surrounding the applicant being placed on notice in April 2022 of a non-criminal investigation, and then of a criminal investigation in June 2022. This is consistent with the opinion provided by Dr Smith that "the predominant cause of Mr Vassallo's psychological disease is related to disciplinary action proposed to be taken by his employer, specifically the criminal charges laid against him on 8 June 2022". It is the opinion which Mr Gaitanis asks the Commission to prefer.
4. I agree with Mr Gaitanis that Dr Smith is even-handed in the approach that he has taken to identify the cause of the applicant's psychological injury. Dr Smith accepts that the applicant has a level of symptoms related to traumatic exposure due to the applicant's work as a police officer. That is despite there being no specific reference to exposure to traumatic incidents at work in the notes initially recorded by Ms Withers on 15 June 2022 or by Dr Malek on

16 June 2022. There is also only a brief reference by the applicant to "visions of suicides" in his first statement dated 11 August 2022 when compared to the extensive details he provides in that same statement regarding difficulties he has had with management over several years. 5. Dr Smith is also aware from that first statement provided by the applicant of various incidents over the years which the applicant perceived to involve unfair and unfavourable treatment towards himself by fellow officers. 6. However, in Hamad v Q Catering Limited [2017] NSWWCCPD 6 (Hamad), DP Snell emphasised at [77] the "issue of the competing causal roles of the various work matters" in the determination of a s 11A defence. He observed that the worker "of course, carried no onus in this regard". 7. Deputy President Snell then said at [88]:

"...There may be cases in which causation of a psychological injury can be established without specific medical evidence, for example where there is a single instance of major psychological trauma, with no other competing factors. The need for medical evidence, dealing with the causation issue in s 11A (1) of the 1987 Act, will depend on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. In the current case, as in most, there are a number of potentially causative factors raised in the appellant's statement and the medical histories. Proof of whether those factors, which potentially provide a defence under s 11A (1), were the whole or predominant cause of the psychological injury, required medical evidence on that topic. The extent of any causal contribution, from matters not constituting actions or proposed actions by the respondent with respect to discipline, could not be resolved on the basis of the Arbitrator's common knowledge and experience."

1. I do not accept from a review of the evidence that this is a case where there has been

"a single instance of major psychological trauma" (Hamad), even though the applicant's cessation of work coincides with him being given notice of an investigation into possible criminal charges. 2. This is a case where there are "a number of potentially causative factors raised in the appellant's statement and the medical histories" (Hamad). 3. Both Dr Smith and Dr Nagesh accept to varying degrees that the applicant suffers from symptoms related to exposure to traumatic events. 4. The applicant also sets out, especially in his first statement dated 11 August 2022, various incidents over the years which he perceived to amount to unfair treatment. 5. Dr Smith observes that the applicant's thought content had a larger emphasis on the alleged actions taken by work colleagues and the applicant's perception of these matters as being unfair when compared to the impact from traumatic events. However, as DP Roche observed in Attorney General's Department v K [2010] NSWWCCPD 76 (Attorney General's Department v K) at [54]:

"The critical question is whether the event or events complained of occurred in the workplace. If they did occur in the workplace and the worker perceived them as creating an 'offensive or hostile working environment', and a psychological injury has resulted, it is open to find that causation is established. A worker's reaction to the events will always be subjective and will depend upon his or her personality and circumstances. It is not necessary to establish that the worker's response was 'rational, reasonable and proportional'."

1. I accept from a review of the evidence that there were real events in the workplace which the applicant perceived to be hostile or offensive, such as the applicant not being informed that charges were withdrawn against a person who had assaulted him, and being investigated for having secondary employment when this allegation could not be sustained.
2. Evidence provided by other witnesses also supports the conclusion that there were real events in the workplace which the applicant perceived to be hostile or offensive. Mr Sauran concedes that if the applicant was told by the Acting Education Officer that he could wear the epaulettes then he "would have been within his rights to accept what she said". Mr Cantrell states that the applicant said to him on 8 June 2022 that he was not happy about how the increment issue was being dealt with and that he did not feel supported.
3. The initial notes taken by both Ms Withers and Dr Malek, although lacking in detail, record the applicant having difficulties with his employer for the past two and a half years, which is consistent with the complaints made by the applicant in his first statement.
4. While Dr Smith concludes that the predominant cause of the applicant's psychological injury is related to disciplinary action proposed to be taken by the respondent, and specifically in relation to potential the criminal charges which the applicant was made aware of on 8 June 2022, he does not explain how he reaches this conclusion given that he also accepts that the applicant has some symptoms related to traumatic exposure and the applicant provides details of working in a hostile environment.
5. A significant deterioration in the applicant's psychological symptoms on and from 8 June 2022 as identified by Dr Smith, even if this coincides with the applicant being informed of potential criminal charges, does not necessarily mean that this disciplinary action has been the main or principal cause of the applicant's psychological injury when the events with respect to that disciplinary action are placed alongside other causal factors which have already been referred to. As DP Snell observed in Hamad at [85]: "a series of events can have a cumulative effect, and may be causative of a psychiatric condition which does not manifest itself until a later time".
6. I therefore do not accept that the predominant cause of the psychological injury sustained by the applicant has been reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by the respondent with respect to discipline.
7. Mr Gaitanis submits that the medical report or reports relied upon by the applicant in his application pursuant to s 14 of the (NSW) Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 would have been highly relevant as to what psychological condition he is suffering from and the reasons for that condition.
8. I agree with that submission, but I also agree with the response from Mr Joseph that the respondent has been aware of this outcome from at least August 2024 when this was detailed in the referral prepared by Christine Wood for the applicant to be examined by a Police Medical Officer. The respondent has had ample time to make their own enquiries in regard to this.
9. I therefore do not consider any adverse inference can be drawn against the applicant by there being no reports available in this dispute regarding the application which was pursued by him in the Local Court.

1. In accordance with the agreement reached between the parties at the commencement of the hearing, this matter will now be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of WPI.
2. This matter will then return to a Member following the provision of the MAC, or any appeal therefrom, to determine the outstanding claims for weekly payments of compensation and medical expenses.