Compensation Court of New South Wales CITATION : LP v South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service [2002] NSWCC 64 revised - 04/08/2008 LP PARTIES : v South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service MATTER NUMBER(S) : 36929 of 2001 JUDGMENT OF: Geraghty J at 1 CATCHWORDS: Assessment of Compensation :- LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 09/09/02; 10/09/02; 16/12/02 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 12/17/2002 FOR APPLICANT: MR B B MC MANAMEY instructed by Turner & Freeman LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: FOR RESPONDENT: MR L G MORGAN instructed by Moray & Agnew JUDGMENT: 1. LP claims weekly benefits from 5 December 1994 and payment of medical expenses. He bases his claim on a back injury suffered in October 1993 which has attracted an agreed payment reflecting a 12 per cent back impairment. He alleges that this back impairment has led to a psychiatric injury caused by pain and by the tensions at work between himself and fellow employees, as well as his boss, because of his back condition. 2. Mr Morgan of counsel identified the issues for determination as: firstly, the causal link between the applicant's present psychiatric condition and any work-related tensions; and secondly, the extent, if any, of the applicant's incapacity for work. This is in truth a psychiatric claim and it is principally about causation. I note that the applicant's wage schedule (Exhibit H) (which is uncontested) alleges a current weekly wage rate in December 1994 of $790, increasing between September 1995 and January 2001 to the sum of $1,021. 3. I have heard lengthy evidence from LP, and, on behalf of the respondent, from the rehabilitation coordinator, Lynette Young, from the business manager of the respondent, John Byrne, and from the applicant's immediate boss, Mark Maddison. I concluded in the course of the applicant's evidence that he was an uncommonly intelligent person. He seemed to have an extraordinary ability to record the details of his employment with uncanny accuracy. His evidence was clear and detailed. He recounted the events of his employment without any obvious anger, in a matter of fact manner, and presented himself in the witness box in a professional way. He had a heavy Spanish accent which might have distorted some communications, at least by telephone, with clients. 4. I noted also that the worker appeared, in giving his evidence and under cross-examination, to be a sensitive, friendly type of man, proud of his competence as a social worker and a man who considered himself to work to very high standards. He seemed to have an extraordinary verbal ability and, as he gave his evidence, I thought that he displayed no evidence of delusional behaviour, though I should say the psychiatrist in this case did not come to the same conclusion. He did not seem to me, in giving his evidence, to distort the reality in which he was involved, though again, some of the psychiatrists thought that he was at least theatrical, if not delusional. He gave detailed and explicit evidence as to the treatment he had received at the hands of Mark Maddison, his boss. I gained the impression that he felt overborne and harassed, victimised and reduced to an almost passive state. 5. I was therefore very interested to observe Mr Maddison's demeanour. When he attended on 16 December, I formed the conclusion that he was a careful, calm, gentle, controlled kind of man, somewhat cold in his demeanour, exact in the manner he gave his evidence. He denied any victimisation, any harassment of LP. He had an air of cool efficiency, without much warmth, without much humour, but a man who, it seemed to me, would not project the appearance of overbearing or dominating, harassing or victimising anyone. He admitted that on occasions he had been angry, that he had lost control, adding that he was rather ashamed of this. I thought that he was not someone who was difficult to deal with. 6. LP was born in Spain in 1949. He remains single and isolated in his life. He comes from a rural part of Spain and was quite uneducated in a formal sense until he came to Australia. He arrived here in 1974 and worked for some years as a boilermaker. He then studied at the Randwick Tech and later completed a course in social work at the University of New South Wales. He then began to work in the psychiatric unit at Cumberland Hospital. He worked for a time for Bankstown Area Health Services before he joined the South East Sydney Health Service sometime in 1993. He dealt mainly with married couples, with divorce and separation, and counselling people with neurotic problems. He said that in the beginning of his employment, he had had a few cases of serious illness but that the psychiatric nurses were rather jealous of this area so he confined himself to dealing with relational problems. 7. During the 1990s LP began to experience back pain from sitting for prolonged periods. He sought treatment. He was prescribed anti-inflammatories and some physiotherapy treatment but had taken no time off before an incident at work on Friday afternoon, 22 October 1993. He was collecting papers from behind a heavy cabinet. He found himself in an awkward position, bending and lifting a filing cabinet, when he experienced a sharp pain in the low back. He did not consider the incident was important so he did not report it. However, come Monday, 25 October, he was unable to bend his legs when he woke up. He was in excruciating pain, he said. So he consulted a doctor, underwent an x-ray and was off work for about one week. The pain settled but did not disappear and, from that time, he has found he has always been in pain, that activity, particularly driving, aggravated the pain. 8. He returned to work in March 1994. A new team leader, Mark Maddison, had been appointed in November the previous year. LP said that he did not have any problem with him to begin with, but that gradually, over a period of time, he and his team leader began to be involved in serious clashes and conflict. Problems arose with the rehabilitation plan for his return to work and with the periods during which he was required to drive. There were meetings; there were requests; and according to him there were demands that he should drive beyond the limits of the rehabilitation plan established by his doctor. Mr Maddison denied this and said that he was careful not to go beyond the limits which the doctor had set in the plan. There were problems as to complaints made about LP's treatment of a number of patients. He also complained that his boss, Mr Maddison, was robbing him of accumulated days off or ADOs. Mr Byrne said that Mr Maddison had been in a position to do this. Mr Maddison denied what Mr Byrne said and denied the allegation of the applicant, saying that he had no power to take ADOs away. 9. There were problems also as to where LP was at any set time of the day, about his entries in work diaries, about his unexplained absences. There was also a general problem emerging with Mr Maddison. LP gave evidence of bouts of shouting, abuse, of angry outbursts, unreasonable demands, about allegations of incompetence. By and large, Mr Maddison rejected these allegations, though it was clear he was having problems with LP. It seemed to me that the applicant was in fact a difficult person. He was uncooperative, and insistent on his rights. He did not want to go beyond the limits of the rehabilitation plan, and he was very sensitive to the pain he was suffering. 10. There is no doubt that the worker had a back injury. An x-ray of the lumbar spine dated 25 October 1993 showed some minor degenerative lipping, according to the report of Dr James Bodel of 24 April 2001. An MRI scan of the lumbar spine dated 4 June 1996 showed minor dehydration and degenerative change, with an annular tear at the L4/5 level, but without any disc disruption. A CAT dated 10 November 1994 showed minor degenerative disc bulge at the L4/5 level. Such are the findings recorded in some of the radiological reports. 11. It appears from the medical certificates of Dr Ajjam (Exhibit 7 and Exhibit B), from the report of Dr Adams (Exhibit U), of Dr Rosenthal (Exhibit 8/6), Dr Silver (Exhibit 8/8), Dr Sundaraj (Exhibit N), Dr Ng (Exhibit T) and of the various other orthopaedic doctors including Dr Hodginson, Dr Ganora, Dr Bornstein, Dr Wolfendon, Dr Terenty, Dr Drew and Dr Bodel, that the applicant had suffered what could only be described as a minor back injury. It had been caused by an incident on 22 October 1993. It had resulted in some partial incapacity, and to the present day, the applicant is receiving treatment by way of pain management, the application of a TENS machine and some medication. It was conceded that that injury had resulted in a back impairment (when compared to a most extreme case) of 12 per cent, and it was this injury and the applicant's response to the pain and inconvenience it had caused which seems to have disrupted the relationship between himself and Mark Maddison. 12. At the end of a long series of allegations about meetings which had occurred and in which he, Mr Maddison and Mr Byrne and other people were involved, LP gave evidence of a meeting of the team on 18 October 1994. It had been a case allocation meeting. The applicant said the rule had been established by Mr Maddison that difficult cases would be allocated in rotation. However, on this occasion, LP said, his boss had arbitrarily allocated a difficult case to him. On the occasion, he objected that he had accepted the previous one, according to the boss's rule. He said that the boss had said that yes, he had established the rule, but he was changing the rule, and it was LP's turn to take this difficult case. The applicant said there were seven other people in the room who were ahead of him. He had already been given several difficult cases and he had, he said, been over-loaded. He alleged that Mr Maddison had said that he was standing there (not sitting) like a cigar store Indian dummy. 13. Of course he interpreted this statement as derogatory, and Mr Maddison agreed that he had made the remark. LP said that everybody at work knew he was in pain. At the end of the meeting Mr Maddison had told LP that he wanted to see him in his office. The applicant gave evidence that he had been shaking. He had had a panic attack and chest contractions. He had been taken into the office where John Byrne was also present. He went there with a pen and paper to record the contents of the discussion. He said that Mr Maddison had shouted words at him about being an Indian dummy. He said that he had been angry, and ordered away with gestures, humiliated and abused. The substance of this evidence was confirmed by Mr Maddison, that is, he agreed that he had called the worker a cigar store Indian dummy, though my impression was that he did not agree that he had harassed, abused and humiliated LP. 14. Mr Byrne was called to give evidence. He had been the business manager of the health service from March 1994. He complained that on one occasion he had seen the applicant in shorts and a t-shirt at work - dressed in an unprofessional manner wearing tight shorts - but that this had happened only once to his knowledge. Ipanazar denied this. Byrne also said that he had been at two meetings he could remember with Mr Maddison and LP. He said the first dealt with doctors' certificates about driving restrictions and, against LP's evidence, he said there had been no shouting or yelling at this meeting, although he agreed Mr Maddison was agitated, was stern and appeared to be unhappy. He said that in the end the applicant had been very submissive. The second meeting was one dealing with team case loads. Again he had been present with the applicant and Mr Maddison. He said the applicant had been accused of not being sufficiently involved with team meetings and that he had been described as a cigar store dummy. There had been a complaint about the lack of in-put by LP. This meeting had taken place, according to Mr Byrne, in Mr Maddison's office and he agreed that Mr Maddison, the superior of LP, had been agitated, that he had appeared frustrated, he had had believed the applicant was not doing his case load, though there had been no shouting or any war of words because the applicant had again appeared submissive. 15. Mr Maddison gave impressive evidence. He seemed calm and controlled. He no longer works for the respondent. He said that when he had been working there, they were working under great pressure. They were under-resourced, with heavy workloads. He had had difficulty dealing with LP, but he had not been the only one who had resisted the supervision of Mr Maddison. Mr Maddison said that even after the worker left and had been replaced by somebody else, there had still been unhappiness in the team. There is little doubt that the change-over from a service providing relational counselling in 1993 to a service looking to support seriously mentally ill patients in 1994, had not been conducted in a fully professional and business-like manner. Mr Maddison said that his team had been given some in-service training to move from soft social work to difficult mental psychiatric work. They had attended some seminar once a week. Whether this was enough, or not, I am unable to say, but he said, significantly, that there had been no in-service training, no counselling, no seminars to facilitate a change one job to a completely different one, that is, changing from doing community soft counselling work to heavy seriously mentally ill treatment. I found this piece of evidence extremely significant. 16. There had been a serious build-up of tension in the life of LP. He said that over a period of time he had become emotionally screwed up. He felt that his back was deteriorating. He was very nervous, and felt that he was under attack. He began to experience sleep disturbances and loss of concentration. He felt panic attacks and chest contractions. He felt that there were constant demands being placed on him, to do driving duties, which he was unable to perform because of his back. He kept reminding his supervisors of his doctor and his back problem. Such was his recollection, though Mr Maddison said that he had always acted within the limits of the rehabilitation plan. Whatever about the truth of either side, it seems to me there had been quite a lot of friction and unpleasantness about what the applicant was prepared and felt able to do, and what Mr Maddison wanted him to do. Sure, each had his own interpretation of what was taking place. One felt pressure: the other felt frustration. 17. LP said that he has constant back pain, though it varies in intensity. It was clear from his demeanour in Court that he is forever conscious of his back problems. He was standing regularly at the back of the Court, stiff against the wall, and then, strange to say, he would slump in the chair with his bottom on the edge of the chair, his thoracic spine on the upright of the chair in a position which appeared to me to be quite precarious and uncomfortable. He said that he must be careful bending, lifting, sitting, swimming, and that he only walks short distances. He said he is able to drive, but he assumes a lying down position in his car, supporting his lumbar spine and his head, and driving only short distances. 18. The applicant said that even now, after all this time, he is unable to handle normal stressors of life. He feels frail, vulnerable and easily upset. He has sleeping problems, disturbed dreams. Some doctors even refer to some of the symptoms relating to post-traumatic stress disorder. He said he feels very angry and full of hate. He has concentration problems. He is unable to read seriously. He has panic attacks. He does not believe he is able to do his old job as a social worker, mainly because of back problems which do not allow him to sit for any length of time. He also experiences problems with authority. 19. There was a plethora of psychiatric reports to examine. 20. The psychiatrist, Dr Pettit, began his treatment in December 1994. In his report of February 1995 to Dr Zabow (Exhibit 8/7), Dr Pettit noted that his patient had particular difficulties at work as a counsellor. These difficulties became accentuated in May 1994 when LP began clashing with his boss. He became progressively more anxious and depressed, and significantly, the psychiatrist said that his patient began to speak in a rather colourful fashion, drawing parallels between his situation and that of political prisoners in South American gaols. 21. In his report of May 1999, Dr Pettit noted that the major source of his client's stress was his much deteriorated relationship with his boss, Mark Maddison. He described his relationship with him as like a domestic violence victim, without being hit. He observed that some additional sources of distress had come from his job being re-structured and his being asked to look after seriously mentally ill patients. His office was also moved, and when he had returned to work in mid-March 1994, after his back injury, he was, according to his view, treated like a malingerer. He said there had been a campaign of harassment, intimidation and victimisation by Mr Maddison. It is hard to understand how that could be once one had seen Mr Maddison in Court. He was a small, inoffensive, quietly spoken man. 22. Dr Pettit recorded purely psychiatric symptoms which the applicant was experiencing, such as internally fretting constantly, insomnia, cringing in his stomach and chest spread[ing] to his head, feeling of being a total nervous wreck, of nausea, some loss of appetite. 23. When Dr Pettit reviewed him in May 1999, LP said that he wanted a second opinion because, on 30 January 1997, Dr Pettit had said that he did not agree with LP's contention, that his back pain was partly of psychogenic origin and perpetuation. Dr Pettit had also told him that he thought he had been somewhat reluctant to address his panic disorder in any concerted way. Dr Pettit recorded that LP, even in May 1999, still became very angry, ruminating about what had been done to him and that they could get away with it. He was still having fragmentary dreams of being trapped or assaulted by Mark Maddison in the work situation (One has only to see Mr Maddison to realise how ridiculous such dreams and delusions could be), and the accompanying emotion was very intense and real. He spoke of the House of Cards trilogy, on television, which featured a manipulative British prime minister and, because of the partial physical resemblance between this fictional prime minister and Mark Maddison, he watched the program several times to try to de-sensitise himself, but this only upset him more. He said he was emotionally exhausted, that he had been non-stop beaten since 1994. 24. Dr Pettit concluded that LP's psychiatric disorder had developed in about March 1994 and thereafter, and had developed against three factors. Firstly, the doctor believed that his client's up-bringing and early life, particularly his systematic bastardisation in the Spanish Army, and his personality, particularly his obsessive/compulsive traits, were significant. Secondly, and of significance, was the on-going physical symptoms he was experiencing following the back injury of October 1993. And, thirdly, the destructive interpersonal behaviour of the team leader, Mr Mark Maddison was significant. Dr Pettit diagnosed a panic disorder; an adjustment disorder with depressed moods; a chronic pain disorder related to his lumbarsacral region, associated with both psychological factors and his general medical condition. He thought that his client's employment as a social worker had been a significant contributing factor to his psychiatric illness. In fact he said that that factor accounted for 90 per cent of his condition. 25. Dr Lee examined the applicant in October 1995, on behalf of the insurer. His report is Exhibit 8/9. He observed that, from the history given to him, there had been on-going harassment, specifically his being required by his team leader to drive despite his experiencing severe back pain and subsequently, a increasing attitude of authoritarianism, a dismissiveness and criticism. It was alleged by LP that as a result of this harassment, he had suffered anxiety and panic attacks. Dr Lee recorded that his impression was that another possible explanation for this scenario could be the inter-personal conflict between himself and his team leader which had escalated to the point of his refusal to work. 26. Dr Gilbert is a psychologist. His report is Exhibit S. He examined the applicant in July 1996. Psychological tests did not indicate any significant psychopathology. Dr Gilbert observed that LP regarded himself as a very emotionally hardy person which, Dr Gilbert observed, was not untypical of health workers. He thought it was most likely that there was a significant psychological feature to the applicant's current condition. He displayed signs of a disproportionate focus on the misdeeds of his superior and subsequent punishment, as well as a great attention to detail as to the various treatments and symptoms of his low back. As an amateur in this field, it seemed to me that the applicant did display quite marked signs of obsession. One has only to see the letters, and the appendices which were annexed to them, to see just how compulsive and obsessional he has been. 27. Dr Tony Gilbert considered that LP was suffering from chronic pain disorder associated with psychological factors, and that it was likely that these psychological factors were the main element in the onset, severity and maintenance of his pain, though the cause of his psychological distress was difficult to isolate. He thought it might be linked to his reaction to the unsupportive attitude of his superior. 28. A second opinion was provided by Dr McPherson. He became the treating psychiatrist from November 1997. His reports are Exhibit R. 29. In his report of November 1997, Dr Mc Pherson states that LP had suffered high levels of psychiatric symptoms since 1994 when he had been placed under severe stress in his employment situation. As a result of this predicament, he had developed an adjustment disorder with anxiety and panic attacks. It did not appear to me that the worker was placed under severe stress, though he was placed under some stress, as was all the other employees. He seems to have handled the stress very badly. He seems to have caused trouble for his manager, and the manager for him, and as a result, because of his vulnerability, LP seems to have developed an adjustment disorder, as diagnosed by Dr McPherson, with anxiety and panic attacks, though the doctor also said there were some aspects of symptomatology consistent with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. He observed, in the same report, that LP had serious symptomatology. He identified an impairment in functioning which most clinicians would think required treatment or attention. The symptoms had persisted for more than two years and were likely to persist for time into the future (as at November 1997). 30. In his report of May 1999, Dr McPherson said LP was still unfit to resume duties as a social worker in his previous position. He added: Due to his extreme sensitivity to interpersonal stress, particularly with authority figures, which has developed as part of his symptomatology following the trauma, I feel he is probably still unfit for work in most social work situations where team work is involved. 31. Dr McPherson thought the anxiety symptoms had become entrenched. He considered it was unlikely that there would be much significant change in the severity of symptoms until the medico-legal situation had been fully settled and put to one side. Such is my assessment of the situation too. It seems to me that, like most psychiatric cases, litigation is the very worst way of resolving claims and that, if agreement can be reached before litigation commences, that is the best way through for the injured party. However, in this case LP seeks to be justified and confirmed. He wants the respondent to be told that it was in the wrong, that it treated him badly. It seems to me that the system did treat him badly, and treated other employees equally badly, though I should add that it also seems that LP treated his fellow employees and his manager in an uncooperative manner. Dr McPherson considered that it was likely his patient would be left with a permanent high level of anxiety symptoms. 32. In his report of April 2002, Dr McPherson recorded a long list of consultations between February 1997 and April 2002. He said that his findings on each examination and the diagnosis he formed were essentially the same. His patient suffered a chronic adjustment disorder with severe anxiety. He also had a chronic pain disorder associated with his back pathology. The doctor thought that his patient was completely incapacitated and unable to work. The incapacity was caused by the combination of his back injury and his psychiatric injury. I should add to this assessment that it seems to me the applicant's back injury resulted in a light, partial incapacity and that, in most circumstances, a person with such an incapacity would be able to do a great variety of work. The applicant's incapacity, described by Dr McPherson as complete, largely resulted from his psychological condition. Dr McPherson said that either injury, physical or psychological, would probably be sufficient to incapacitate him for work. I do not agree. The treating psychiatrist thought that his patient continued to be severely disabled, and to suffer severe symptomatology. 33. Dr Clarke examined the applicant in November 1997. His report is Exhibit Q. He refers to a statutory declaration of LP and to a document consisting of 52 pages addressed to the Human Rights Commission. He said the applicant displayed characteristics of someone with many obsessional traits, a prime example of which would be the 52 page document detailing every in and out of his case in an extraordinary manner. He said the applicant had a chronic emotional disorder which was more than an adjustment disorder, and that he could be classified as dysthymia. He also had an underlying obsessional compulsive personality which had served him well in the past but was now chronically disordered. Finally, he said, the chronic pain syndrome he suffered had many of the characteristics one associates with chronically stressed people. 34. Dr Dyball examined the applicant in June 1999 and his report is Exhibit 8/10. He diagnosed an adjustment disorder mainly with anxiety symptoms. He recorded that the worker related his condition to the way he had been treated at work which, Dr Dyball observed, was now of course five years ago. The doctor had no independent account of the work situation and was totally reliant upon the history. Well, of course, even ignoring for a moment what the applicant alleges had been happening to him, on the basis of Mr Maddison's evidence, it would seem that all the employees were under stress, over-loaded and under-trained. Dr Dyball said that while it would obviously be distressing to be treated adversely, it was somewhat more difficult to understand why five years later there had been no recovery. What remains even more puzzling is that for a social worker, or someone involved in psychiatric and psychological care, after five years later there had been no recovery. Dr Dyball said that LP remained psychiatrically vulnerable and disabled to a degree. 35. Finally Dr Waldren examined the applicant in May 2001. Her report is Exhibit 8/1. She thought the worker was psychiatrically disturbed. She said that he had a personality disorder with narcissistic and obsessional personality traits, that his condition would be classified in the DSM4 as a personality disorder not otherwise specified. She thought that this diagnosis was evidenced by his lack of relationships, the on-going projection of his difficulties onto the work he had long since ceased to do and his manner of presentation. She did not consider that LP had actually sustained a psychiatric illness as a result of employment. She thought he was exaggerating his psychological difficulties, and that he had obsessional personality traits rather than an obsessional compulsive disorder. Mr LP is disabled because of his personality disorder and I do not think he is fit to work as a social worker because of it. His personality difficulties are sufficiently severe to interfere with his employment. The prognosis for change is poor. His difficulties are part of a life-long pattern that have not changed despite fairly extensive psychiatric contact. 36. Dr Waldren thought the applicant was seriously psychiatrically disturbed, but that the disturbance was not related to his employment. 37. In conclusion, it would seem that all the doctors considered the applicant as psychiatrically ill, with a variety of diagnoses, though I tend to accept Dr Clarke's assessment. The doctors, almost to a man and a woman, considered the applicant as totally incapacitated for his work as a social worker because of his psychiatric condition, and most of them thought that on the history provided, his condition was work-related, though Dr Waldren did not agree. The evidence of Mr Maddison persuaded me that it is. 38. LP worked as a social worker from about January 1984. He received promotion in about 1990. He worked in care and welfare until March of 1994, for about ten years, without any problem. Before 1993, he was coping well and did not come to notice. His back injury in October 1993 resulted in a minor impairment. However, early in 1994, there were changes in the structure and management at work for which he was unprepared and untrained. There was change in the service which he had to offer, a new service in which, it would seem, he was finding it difficult to provide. Suddenly, he had to cease providing the service he had been giving for ten years and for which he had been confirmed, and to begin providing different services to seriously psychiatrically ill patients. 39. On any view of the facts, there was a serious lack of resources. Employees, including himself, were over-loaded for work, and there was a high level of frustration, from the manager right through. There was no back-up, and no give and take in the service. LP, on one level, seemed to me to be an intelligent, highly trained person, but he was vulnerable on an emotional level. He gradually succumbed to stress and conflict in the work place, and has not responded to treatment despite the fact that it has been going on for many years. It appears from the psychiatric reports that some psychiatrists think that he is delusional, others that he is theatrical. Most of them thought him obsessional. There were some element of projection, that is, blaming his back for his psychiatric condition. He certainly seemed to me to be uncooperative for whatever reason. 40. I have concluded that LP was a victim of the system which was in process of sudden and radical change. He was a vulnerable person, with a personality disorder and minor back problems. When he came up against work conflicts, demands, complaints, feelings of alienation, general frustration and chaos, he became disturbed. He began to be caught up in a whirlpool while he was coping with what he regarded as a serious back problem. He did not seem to be someone who would be able to function in a work situation. I have concluded that he is totally incapacitated for work, and has been from 5 December 1994. 41. I make the following findings and awards: (1.) The applicant suffered a back injury on 22 October 1993 and this injury, together with the nature and conditions of his employment as a social worker from March 1994, resulted in a psychiatric injury. (2.) The applicant is totally incapacitated, and has been since 5 December 1994. 42. I note that the current weekly wage rate, as at December 1994, and for at least 26 weeks thereafter, was $790 per week. 43. I make an award from 5 December 1994 to 4 June 1995, in the sum of $790 per week, and thereafter at $250.80 per week as adjusted. 44. I order the respondent to pay the applicant's medical expenses, and the applicant's costs. 45. I allow counsel fees at a daily rate of $1,200, each day assessed as a brief on hearing, and 46. I allow a second conference in the sum of $350. MR B.B. McMANAMEY instructed by Turner & Freeman appeared for the applicant MR L.G. MORGAN instructed by Moray & Agnew appeared for the respondent DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.