Annetts v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 163

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Annetts v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 163 PARTIES: Annetts, Kylie (Appellant) v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Respondent) CASE NO: WC/2013/275 PROCEEDING: Appeal against a decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) DELIVERED ON: 17 October 2014 HEARING DATES: 10, 11 &13 March 2014 4 April 2014 (Appellant Submissions) 22 April 2014 (Respondent Submissions) 2 May 2014 (Submissions in Reply) MEMBER: Deputy President Swan ORDERS : 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The decision of the Respondent dated 2 September 2013 is confirmed. 3. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to the Appeal. CATCHWORDS: WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - psychological injury - whether injury caused by management action - typical work environment for a busy workplace - inappropriate language used at times - allegations of bullying and harassment - after considering the nominated 15 stressors Appellant's claim could not be sustained. CASES: Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 32, s 550 Delaney v Q-COMP (2005) 178 QGIG 197 APPEARANCES: Ms L. Willson, Counsel instructed by Shine Lawyers for the Appellant. -- 1 of 13 -- 2 Mr F. Lippett, Counsel directly instructed by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) the Respondent. Decision [1] This is an application made by Ms Annetts (the Appellant) pursuant to s 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against a decision of the Review Unit of Q-COMP dated 2 September 2013. Since this application was lodged, the Act has been amended with the result that Q-COMP has been abolished and replaced by the Workers' Compensation Regulator, Simon Blackwood (the Regulator). In this decision the Regulator is used in place of Q-COMP. [2] The Regulator's decision determined that the Appellant had satisfied the definition of injury pursuant to the Act, but rejected the claim on the basis that: "The significant contributing factor was Ms Annetts' perception of Mr Duffill's actions as her supervisor and perception that management had failed to adequately respond to her complaints regarding the conduct of Mr Duffill. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate that those actions were other than reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way." Onus of Proof [3] The Appellant bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities. [4] The hearing is a hearing de novo. Matters to be determined [5] It is accepted that the Appellant is a "worker" for the purposes of the Act and that the Appellant suffered a personal injury (a major depressive disorder). [6] The matters to be determined are as follows:  As a matter of fact, what are the events/issues that are causative of the Appellant's psychological injury?  What were the management actions, if any, relevant to this claim?  Can the Appellant prove that she sustained an injury arising out of, or in the course of employment to which "employment was a significant contributing factor"?  Is the claim excluded by the application of s 32(5) of the Act? [7] The Act relevantly provides: "32 Meaning of Injury (1) An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury." -- 2 of 13 -- 3 … (5) Despite subsections (1) and (3), injury does not include a psychiatric or psychological disorder arising out of, or in the course of, any of the following circumstances - (a) reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the worker's employment; (b) the worker's expectation or perception of reasonable management action being taken against the worker; (c) action by the Authority or an insurer in connection with the worker's application for compensation.". [8] Witnesses for the Appellant were:  Ms K Annetts (worker);  Ms J Rendell (Senior Health Information Manager);  Ms D Dunn (Clinical Information Access Officer);  Ms V Murray (Administration-Health Records);  Dr N Dharmapriva (General Practitioner);  Dr A Byth (Psychiatrist). [9] Witnesses for the Respondent were:  Mr G Duffill (Program Co-Coordinator Health Information Management);  Ms M Rock (Medical Records). Time period over which these events occurred [10] The Appellant stated that these events occurred during 2011 and a formal complaint was made in September 2011 at which time the Appellant said she had suffered a psychological injury. Medical Evidence General Practitioners and Caboolture Hospital Reports  On Tuesday 15 February 2011, the Appellant attended at the Caboolture Hospital reporting a "funny chest" with symptoms being "chest tightness, light-headedness, headache, right hand pins and needles and clamminess." There had been no mention of workplace issues on that report. However, the Appellant believed that she had mentioned work issues [Exhibit 6].  On 21 April 2011, the Appellant again visited the Caboolture Hospital complaining of chest pain within the "context of significant social stress". The Appellant told those attending to her that she had a prior history of panic attacks and anxiety and that she was "very stressed at work, very stressed with educational course, very recent relationship breakdown". -- 3 of 13 -- 4 There had been no mention of workplace bullying and or harassment notwithstanding that the Appellant stated that she had mentioned those matters [Exhibit 7].  The Appellant visited her General Practitioner on 16 February 2011. At that time, the notes taken related to the Appellant quitting smoking in one day. There was no mention of workplace problems [Exhibit 8].  On 11 March 2011, the Appellant visited her General Practitioner mentioning the likely ending of a relationship, pressure at work, studying. The Appellant said she had advised the Doctor of her work issues but he had not mentioned those in his notes. In evidence given by Dr Dharmapriya, he stated that the Appellant's concern had been related to the ending of a relationship. He then stated that "she didn't really tell me a huge amount about the pressure of work at that time, but there were lots of pressures" [Exhibit 8, T-58].  The next visit to a Doctor was on 20 May 2011. The visit related to "anxiety" and similarly for visits on 27 May 2011 and 17 June 2011.  Dr Dharmapriya's evidence was that if the Appellant had mentioned any particular workplace stressor on either 20 May 2011 or 17 June 2011, then he would have recorded those concerns [T1-63, 64].  The first occasion where bullying was recorded by a medical practitioner was on 8 September 2011 when the following was recorded "Bullying at work by boss - writing report." Psychiatrist Report  Dr Byth's diagnosis was that the Appellant suffered from "Major Depression, with prominent associated anxiety and agitation".  This diagnosis was accepted by the Respondent. The cause for such a condition, in Dr Byth's Report, was the Appellant's "difficulty coping with harassment and bullying at work, particularly by her project coordinator, and, to a lesser extent, by other staff" [Exhibit 10].  In forming this view, Dr Byth had taken into account written statements made by Ms Valerie Murray, Ms Loiacono and Ms Daniel - all co-workers of the Appellant.  The Respondent pointed out that Ms Loiacono and Ms Daniel were not being called to give evidence in this matter and as such the Respondent was unaware of what claims had been made in those statements.  Concerning Ms Murray's statement, her evidence included matters past the 'cut-off' period of September 2011.  Dr Byth had also taken into account a report written by a Psychologist, Ms Borges dated 14 May 2013, who wasn't called to give evidence.  The Respondent submitted that little weight could be given to Dr Byth's opinion as to the causation of the Appellant's condition.  While the diagnosis made by Dr Byth is accepted by the parties, in my view the Respondent's submissions about the reliability of Dr Byth's Report as it related to causation, requires further consideration. [11] Concerning the matter of medical evidence generally, it is fair to say that various visits to medical practitioners and the Hospital during most of 2011 at least until -- 4 of 13 -- 5 8 September 2014 dealt with a range of issues in the Appellant's life other than specifically work related issues, the subject of this Appeal. Evidence concerning nominated Stressors [12] The Appellant filed a List of Stressors. These are as follows: S1 "The stressors which I alleged caused my psychiatric injury are: bullying and harassment by Grant Duffill and Marilyn Rock." The commentary under that category is a Statement only. S2 Lack of fairness and constant criticism "I arrived ten minutes late for work. As I approached the photocopier Grant yelled from his office in an abusive tone 'you're 10 minutes late, your shift starts at 8.30, you are to be here at 8.30 if you are not here it impacts on everyone else'. Grant failed to give me a chance to explain and yelled at me in front of other staff." Mr Duffill said he had not yelled at the Appellant and Ms Dunn's evidence was that the Appellant was permitted to explain her lateness. Ms Dunn's view was that Mr Duffill's "tone was inappropriate I suppose. A bit … with an accusation tone I suppose, very deep, loud, definitely out of the ordinary." However, Ms Dunn believed it was a fair comment on Mr Duffill's part to state that if an employee was late then that could impact upon other employee's work. Mr Duffill said that the Appellant had been late on other occasions. When this happened, the Appellant had given her reasons for her lateness. I accept that Mr Duffill raised his voice to the Appellant and that this unsettled her. That those comments and behaviour on Mr Duffill's part constituted bullying and harassment is not accepted by me. This was an occasion in a discrete set of circumstances where the Appellant was, in fact, late for work and it appeared to annoy Mr Duffill. In the circumstances, Mr Duffill spoke loudly and intemperately to the Appellant and this was unfortunate, but it is not an example of behaviour so inappropriate as to constitute bullying and/or harassment. On the occasions when the Appellant had been late for work (including this occasion), no disciplinary processes were initiated by Mr Duffill. S3 Bullying from other staff "On one occasion I was sitting at my desk when Marilyn Rock brought in three large charts for me, she threw them on my desk and in abrupt tone said 'there you go, track 'em to yourself". -- 5 of 13 -- 6 Ms Rock was not part of the Management team at the workplace, but was a co-worker of the Appellant. This matter related to the allegation that Ms Rock threw some files on the Appellant's desk. Ms Rock denied this but stated that it would have been possible that she said those words to the Appellant. Ms Rendell's evidence was that it often happened that the administration team would throw charts into a trolley and onto a desk. Her view was that "they all tend to do that". I have accepted evidence that this type of behaviour was a reasonably common event. That this event occurred between the Appellant and Ms Rock in my view may have been jarring, but is clear that the Appellant did not raise the issue with Mr Duffill. The Appellant said she had complained about Ms Rock's behaviour and this is referenced in Stressor 4. The evidence shows that the Appellant was prepared to raise other issues with Mr Duffill, but not this one. The Appellant's reaction was, in my view an over-reaction. She did not like Ms Rock's approach, but at the same did not seek to bring it to the attention of the Manager. S4 Lack of assistance or support re: Marilyn Rock "I discussed my issues and concerns about Marilyn with Jacinta Rendell and Vicky Hale. Jacinta Rendell's response was to tell me 'don't worry about it, just ignore her, focus on doing your job, that's just the way she is". This stressor relates to Ms Rock's use of the term "bite your bum" when speaking to others including the Appellant. There was evidence, which I have accepted, to the effect that Ms Rock used that term frequently. Mr Duffill says he had known nothing of this, but, given the evidence on this point by other witnesses, I find it difficult to accept that he was unaware of it. The Appellant says that she had complained about this to Ms Rendell (who did not recall the incident) and Ms Hale (who was not called to give evidence). In any event, Ms Rock acknowledged that she often spoke in those terms, but had not meant to offend anyone. The fact that Ms Rock had spoken to other employees in those terms should have been immediately stopped by management. The words themselves are childish, but more so disrespectful and crude. I have accepted that it upset the Appellant and should have been addressed appropriately by management. There has been conflicting evidence as to whether Ms Rock yelled at co-workers. Ms Dunn had never heard Ms Rock yelling at anyone, including the Appellant with whom she shared an office [T2-6]. Ms Murray's evidence was that Ms Rock yelled at co-workers [T2-27]. From this evidence I have accepted that Ms Rock on occasions raised -- 6 of 13 -- 7 her voice or yelled at other co-workers. In a discrete office environment at the Caboolture Hospital it would also be improbable that Mr Duffill was unaware of this behaviour and this behaviour should have been addressed by Mr Duffill. S5 Lack of professional courtesy and confidentiality "I presented to the Emergency Department with chest pains and tightness in the chest. Grant Duffill asked another staff member if I was always this sick. Grant Duffill should not have been discussing my personal circumstances with other workers." Mr Duffill's enquiry to another employee as to whether the Appellant was always sick (i.e. the Appellant had presented at the Caboolture Hospital with chest pain) was, I have accepted, asked with the interest of the Appellant in mind. I have not found it unusual that Mr Duffill asked someone this question out of interest for the Appellant's well-being and also because of work requirements. S6 Constant Criticism "Grant Duffill asked me to show the new trainee how to take the minutes of the meeting. He asked me to email him the minutes from the meeting to check once they were done. I later emailed the minutes of the meeting to him. He said that the notes should be done at a professional standard and he shouldn't have to check." Mr Duffill was the Manager and quite entitled to expect work to be performed at a level satisfactory to him. That the Appellant was hurt by Mr Duffill's comments appears to be an over-reaction on her part. S7 Unnecessary pressuring "At 9.10 a.m. Grant Duffill advised that we would be having a CRUM (Clinical Records Unit Meeting) meeting at 9.30 a.m. and that I was required to attend the meeting to take the minutes and to train Laura on how to take the minutes. At 9.23 a.m. I received a telephone call from Lauren advising that they were having a meeting and that I needed to come and take the minutes. I said "Isn't the meeting at 9.30 a.m.? She confirmed. I said that I would be there at 9.30 a.m. and that I was still working on an urgent ROI (Release of Information), she said yes you still have four minutes. At 9.26 a.m. Marilyn came up to me as I was walking out of my office and said 'you have to come now we are having a meeting'. I said 'what is going on, I was told the meeting was at 9.30 a.m. my phone says 9.26 a.m." I see no need to explore this matter any further. The raising of this issue as a contributing stressor is in my view questionable. It represents no -- 7 of 13 -- 8 more than normal pre-meeting issues and conversations in a busy work environment. S8 Bullying by co-worker "I asked Marilyn Rock if she could email me the statistics for DDSM (Document and Data Storage Management) and she replied with something like 'you can go and bite your bum.' This was in front of another co-worker from a different area of the hospital." This has been covered in Stressor 4. S9 Lack of fairness, lack of support and bullying "I emailed Grant Duffill advising him that I was not physically feeling well enough to unpack the stationary (30 + boxes). When I arrived at work there was an email from Grant Duffill printed out and sticky taped to my monitor advising that my first task for the day would be to unpack the stationary. Grant Duffill didn't even give me the chance to discuss the issues." The Appellant had been asked to perform this duty on Thursday 14 April. She advised Mr Duffill that she was unwell and she did not perform those duties on that day. The following day, Friday April 15, the Appellant was away from the workplace attending a meeting. The following Monday, 18 April that Appellant was off work because of illness. She returned to work on Tuesday 19 April, and found the note on her monitor. Mr Duffill stated that he regularly placed notes on monitors to remind others of meetings etc. and the placing of the note on the Appellant's monitor was no more than that - a reminder. That this offended the Appellant is difficult to understand. S10 Lack of support and constant criticism and ganging up "During a CRUM meeting staff members raised the issue of who is responsible for processing urgent ROIs. All staff who participated in this discussion were aware that it was my role and this was raised after a staff member was required to process two urgent ROIs. Grant Duffill advised that it was the CIO's responsibility to process all urgent ROIs and that there wouldn't be anything urgent enough that it couldn't wait for me to get back from lunch. I also had another conversation with Grant Duffill telling him that I didn't understand why other staff who have been upgraded from an AO2 to an AO3 only because they 'may have to process an ROI'. He said 'it's your job. It's your responsibility to do.' I said 'I understand that and I am not trying to get anyone to do my work. I just thought if I was at lunch, taking minutes or doing a location audit that someone else would -- 8 of 13 -- 9 be able to process an urgent one.' Grant Duffill said that I am to leave whatever else I am doing to come back and process an urgent ROI." This matter related to two instructions given to the Appellant by Mr Duffill. These instructions were queried by the Appellant. Responses were given to the Appellant by Mr Duffill and these caused her distress. There may have been some inconsistency in what the Appellant was required to do, but nevertheless they were instructions from her Manager - neither of them were inappropriate or improper or unfair. Mr Duffill was the Manager and there was nothing in the instructions which could describe them as so inappropriate or offensive as to constitute bullying and/or harassment. S11 Constant criticism "Grant Duffill was standing at the photocopier (I was at my desk) when he asked me how many discharge summaries had been completed for April. I said I don't know. Approximately 15 minutes later he handed me a list (2 pages) and said that 6 would be acceptable however this isn't and that I needed to investigate it. I advised him that not all of them would require an EDS (Enterprise Discharge Summary). He replied in an abrupt tone "well that wouldn't be many". An instruction was given after some discussion between the Appellant and Mr Duffill. In my view it constituted normal office interaction around a particular duty and the fact that Mr Duffill may have responded in an "abrupt" tone does not mean that this was harassment and/or bullying behaviour. S12 Lack of fairness "I had my performance appraisal with Grant Duffill. He asked what he could do as a line manager to support me. When I addressed receiving constructive feedback and positive feedback, he said that he 'was not the kind of manager that would treat his staff like children, he was not going to hold the hands of staff and tell them they are doing a good job'. He said that I was always coming to him with problems." Because of the type of response expressed by the Appellant, I find it unremarkable that Mr Duffill responded in the manner in which he did. Mr Duffill's evidence, which on this point I have accepted, was that the Appellant was regularly bringing work related problems to him. Ms Rendell's evidence of the work relationship between Mr Duffill and the Appellant (which I have accepted) was to the effect that the Appellant would often challenge much of what Mr Duffill was saying. In her view "they butted heads a lot" [T2-36]. -- 9 of 13 -- 10 The Appellant's attitude towards Mr Duffill must have also caused him a considerable degree of exasperation. S13 Lack of fairness and constant criticism "I arrived at work and a reminder notification popped up on my screen for a coding meeting at 8.30 a.m. I quickly ran a list of things that I needed to accomplish that day. I went and saw Grant Duffill in his office and asked if there was any way I could not go to the CRUM meeting at 1.00 p.m. Grant asked me why. I said that I had to take meeting minutes at the coding meeting, conduct three location audits, private patients' charts, outstanding EDS reports and any urgent ROIs. Grant replied abruptly with 'what coding meeting? It has been cancelled.' I said that I wasn't aware that it had been cancelled. Grant Duffill advised that I would be there as it was my job to take the minutes of the meeting." This stressor needs no further comments from me other than to state that it bears all the hallmarks of usual office procedure and organisation. S14 Lack of fairness, failure to backfill "I asked Grant Duffill whether or not I would be training Pam in EDS. He advised that he does not have money for training and EDS would just not be done that week. I replied, 'so I will have to do two weeks work when I get back?' In an abusive tone he replied with 'well you're the one taking leave, you can either not take leave, do it when you get back or write a WUG' (Work Unit Guideline). Grant Dunhill once again replied in an abusive tone 'well it's your job, it's your responsibility." I have not been able to understand what is unusual in reminding an employee that some work needs to be done when they return to work after their leave. I understand the Appellant said this two weeks' worth of work would have to be completed together with her other duties when she returned to work, but again I find that unremarkable. Mr Duffill's response may not have been optimal and the most considerate in the circumstances, but it is hardly bullying or harassing. The Appellant was going on leave, so the options would be that she not take her leave, do the work when she came back, or write a WUG. S15 Lack of support and constant criticism "Grant called me into his office to talk about EDS. Grant said that I should be able to run the report and complete it between 8.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. on a Monday morning. I said that the report does take some time and I am usually focusing on EDS and ROI's on Monday mornings. Grant Duffill said that the process was taking too long. I explained what I needed to check to ensure that the correct information was being sent out to consultants. Grant said that I was an AO3 and it was my -- 10 of 13 -- 11 responsibility to streamline my duties if they were taking too long. No support or assistance was provided." Mr Duffill had stated that the process being undertaken by the Appellant had taken too long and that she needed to prioritise her duties in order to meet these goals. The evidence around this point does not suggest that Mr Duffill was harassing the Appellant. Asking her to prioritise her work is not an unreasonable request. Also there was no evidence that the Appellant asked for extra help. Consideration of evidence and conclusion [13] The medical evidence (other than that of Dr Byth) largely does not support the Appellant in her claim with regard to the events of 2011. [14] Up until September 2013, it appears that very scant mention has been made by the Appellant to medical practitioners regarding her issues at work. There have been factors nominated by the Appellant to the Doctors which relate to other issues being prominent her life during 2011 and particularly so prior to 8 September 2011. [15] While there is no challenge to Dr Byth's diagnosis of the Appellant's condition, I have partially accepted the Respondent's claims with regard to Dr Byth's Report. Dr Byth had relied upon the Appellant's information and also information given to him by persons not called to give evidence before the Commission. Those persons included two fellow workers and the Psychologist who had provided a Report. This is not a criticism of Dr Byth at all. Dr Byth can only consider the information placed before him by the Appellant together with any other reports and or statements. It is Dr Byth's Report which goes to the question of "causation" of the injury which is questioned by the Respondent. I have considered his evidence within that context. [16] I have weighed Dr Byth's report as to causation (and not injury) with the evidence put before the Commission in this matter of which Dr Byth would be unaware. I have accepted evidence that the Appellant frequently challenged Mr Duffill's authority, she was an active participant on some occasions in the conflict which ensued [T2-36 Para 5, 15, 30, 40; T2-37 Para 10]. [17] In terms of the Stressors nominated by the Appellant, there is primarily one area where I feel there has been questionable management action in terms of a stressor nominated by the Appellant. This relates to the behaviour of Ms Rock. It is appreciated that Ms Rock was undergoing major stress in her life during this time (her husband had a terminal illness), but that does not excuse the thoughtless responses she gave to others with whom she worked, and the loudness/yelling with which she spoke to co-workers including the Appellant. [18] I have not accepted that Mr Duffill was unaware of Mr Rock's use of "bite your bum" as a response to co-workers and her behaviour generally, but at the same time there is no evidence before the Commission to show that any worker, including the Appellant, had raised the issue with him. -- 11 of 13 -- 12 [19] Given the Appellant's propensity to raise many issues with Mr Duffill and argue the point with him, I am not convinced that the Appellant was as offended as she claims to have been by those words and behaviour. Ms Rock appeared to use those words randomly to those in the workplace and for this she should have been immediately stopped and warned not to repeat that type of behaviour again. [20] In all I have found the issues around Ms Rock (and primarily her use of the terminology "bite your bum" and her loud voice) to constitute a failing on the part of management in its treatment of employees generally, and for the purposes of this application, specifically the Appellant. Notwithstanding that the complaint had not been raised with Mr Duffill, the evidence more than suggest that Ms Rock's behaviour was problematic in the workplace. Mr Duffill was the Appellant's direct supervisor. Many other work issues were raised between the Appellant and Mr Duffill, but not Ms Rock. [21] The Appellant has submitted that the stressors nominated by the Appellant were not mere "blemishes" but rather a series of repetitive blemishes "joined by subject matter, time and personality."1 [22] I have not accepted that there were a series of repetitive 'blemishes' relating to the stressors nominated by the Appellant and causative of her injury. [23] Where 'blemishes' were relevant, then the only event which might fit into that category was that relating to Ms Rock. [24] It is clear that the major thrust of the stressors complained of by the Appellant were against Mr Duffill relating to their interactions. I have not found that Mr Duffill's interactions with the Appellant constituted bullying and/or harassment on his part. [25] There was on occasions intemperate behaviour on the part of Mr Duffill towards the Appellant, but not to the extent complained of by the Appellant. In my view, that intemperate behaviour on Mr Duffill's part can be explained by considering the following evidence from Ms Rendell. The evidence is as follows: Counsel for the Respondent: "What do you remember about the conflict between Grant and Kylie then"? Ms Rendell: "Well, I guess that I have just said. You know, if he was giving instruction - or, you know, discussing something, you know, she would probably challenge him,, you know. So they butted heads a lot. Yeah. Not - no sort of specific instance I can remember". Counsel for the Respondent: "Okay?" -- Ms Rendell: "It was two and a half years ago. But they definitely - yeah. There was sort of - there was conflict between them." Counsel for the Respondent: "And can you describe the demeanour of Mr Duffill in such a situation?" Ms Rendell: "Yeah, So I guess if he would - if there were instructions, you know, sometime, I guess that 1Delaney v Q-COMP (2005) 178 QGIG 197 -- 12 of 13 -- 13 instructions, you know, wasn't - you know he - he might've been a bit blunt in the way he delivered his instructions, you know, with authority, which, I guess, is his position and, yeah. I guess when he was challenged by her he would, you know, be on the back foot. So - yeah - I guess that sort of resulted in conflict between them because obviously, you know, the manager - him giving instruction then being challenged on that, you know, creates a conflict situation." [T2-36] [26] Against this background, the evidence of Ms Rendell which I accept, more appropriately reflects the situation between Mr Duffill and the Appellant. The nominated stressors relating to these two people constitute no more than issues which arise in a particularly demanding workplace within the administrative environment of a busy Hospital. The Appellant was not bullied or harassed. She frequently argued the point with her Manager, and wrongly saw many of the responses from her Manager as constituting bullying and harassment. [27] The findings are:  The Appellant did suffer an injury for the purposes of s 32 of the Act. The injury is that of Major Depressive Disorder".  However, I find that s 32(5) of the Act precludes the Appellant's injury because of: "(a) Reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the worker's employment". [28] I dismiss the claim. The Appellant is to pay the costs of and incidental to the Appeal. [29] Order accordingly. -- 13 of 13 --