Tubic v YMCA Sydney [2002] NSWCC 21

Compensation Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Tubic v YMCA Sydney [2002] NSWCC 21 Mara Tubic PARTIES : v Y on the Park MATTER NUMBER(S) : 65648 of 2000 JUDGMENT OF: Geraghty J at 1 CATCHWORDS: Elements of Workers Compensation :- LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/26/2002

FOR APPLICANT: Mr Swinton instructed by Martin Bell & Co. appeared for the applicant

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: FOR RESPONDENT: Mr Hoeben S C instructed by Church & Grace appeared for the respondent

JUDGMENT: 1. Mara Tubic claims weekly benefits from 27 July 2000 to date and continuing, lump-sum compensation, pursuant to s 66 and s 67, for back impairment and loss of use of her right leg, payment of her medical expenses, and an award of interest. 2. The applicant bases her claim on an incident on 28 December 1999 in which, she alleges, she fractured the distal metatarsal of her right foot and injured her back when she twisted awkwardly in the incident. She claims to have suffered a psychological injury as a result of the consequences of this incident. The Issues 3. The issues for determination are: firstly, whether any incident occurred in which the applicant injured her right foot, her back, and whether as a result of the work-related injury, she has sustained any consequential psychiatric or psychological injury, there being a question of some previous psychological problem; secondly, is the extent of any incapacity, the quantum of assessments, the application of the provisions of s 68A; and the application of the substantial contributing factor provisions of s 9A. However, beyond all doubt, the central issue was the credit of Mara Tubic herself. Can she be believed when she alleged she injured her right foot and her back on 28 December 1999? I should note that I have been greatly assisted in preparing this judgment by the detailed and extensive submissions of counsel on both sides of the record. The Witnesses 4. Mara Tubic gave evidence and was cross-examined at length by senior counsel. In her evidence, insofar as she could be, she was supported by her daughter Mirijana Tubic who was 19 at the time of the alleged injury. Mrs Tubic was supported also by her treating psychologist (a psychiatrist in his native country), Vito Zepanic, and by the general practitioner at Liverpool who treated her on 6 January 2000, Dr John Daries. He told the court that in the Liverpool practice, treating doctors came and went and this would explain the various handwriting in the clinical records of his practice. The respondent's case was focused mainly on the evidence of three employees of the YMCA in Sydney - Svetlana Ivanesevic, Nana Dedic, and Itana Criado who was the supervising employee at the establishment. Dr Zepanic 5. Dr Zepanic's evidence was given orally on 28 November 2001 and was further expanded by the report dated 29 April 2000 (Exhibit A), by his handwritten notes (Exhibit 2); by his professional fee account of 1 May 2000 (Exhibit 4) and by a report relating to a Marina Djakovic dated 1 October 1999. He stated in evidence and in his report (Exhibit A) that he had first seen Tubic on 24 January 2000, at the request of her general practitioner Dr Marinkovich. Dr Marinkovich's report dated 28 March 2000 (Exhibit C) and his handwritten notes (Exhibit 5) disclose that he himself first saw the applicant on 31 January 2000. 6. So it would seem that Tubic came under the care of her psychologist Dr Zepanic some seven days before she sought treatment from her general practitioner Dr Marinkovich who was, it would seem, her referring doctor. Dr Zepanic did not record any history of previous treatment for depression. He did not know that the applicant had been taking Aurorix for two years, that she had suffered depression for two years, that she had spent six months in hospital for psychiatric treatment, or that she had been treated for depression in 1997. He prepared what could only be described as a superficial, pro-forma report. When confronted with the fact that Tubic had had a history of depression for which she had been treated, and when asked to assume the facts of some pre-existing psychiatric condition, he did not hesitate for a moment or change his opinion. He simply opined that his patient had suffered an aggravation of her psychological condition as a result of the accident on 28 December 1999. He did not hesitate to support the applicant fully, despite the fact that he had not been given any history of a prior condition. 7. In the light of the cross-examination by senior counsel, in the light of the startling similarity between his report dealing with the applicant and that of Marina Djakovic and in the light of his almost routine mechanical reliance upon DSM IV, it is difficult to treat Dr Zepanic's opinion seriously. His report in support of Tubic is, to my mind, of minimal value. His explanation of how the reports between his two different patients were so remarkably similar was, to my mind, disingenuous. However, these comments about Dr Zepanic and about what I consider a most unprofessional approach to his assessment of at least two patients, my remarks do not necessarily reflect adversely on the applicant's case. 8. It is undoubtedly difficult for a person who is confined to speaking the Serbian language and who is suffering psychological problems to find someone who can provide adequate psychological or psychiatric care. Furthermore, the applicant seemed to me to be a simple, uneducated lady who would be vulnerable to suggestions and, whatever the referral mechanism which was in place, there seemed to be some kind of informal relationship between Dr Marinkovich and Dr Zepanic, evidenced by the informal referral mechanism. The two written reports of Dr Zepanic I have seen cause me some unease. Some General Observations 9. In general there are several features of this claim and of the applicant's evidence which caused me concern. There was what appeared to be a serious exaggeration of complaints, and a tendency to avoid answering questions. Tubic seemed to want to act as her own advocate. Secondly, I was concerned by the fact that she had failed to provide to her treating doctor a history of previous psychological problems. Thirdly, at a critical time in January 2000 she changed her doctor from the practice close to where she lived (where Dr Daries and Dr Monk and others worked) to Dr Marinkovich who was practising quite a long way from where she lived, and she had attended Dr Marinkovich for treatment after consulting a solicitor. 10. Fourthly, there was a serious conflict between her evidence and that of her fellow workers. This conflict related to multiple issues with which I will deal in due course. Furthermore, Tubic failed to report her injury to her employer and to her fellow employees, and finally the doctors seem to have failed to report a history of work injury even though she said she had provided it, and further failed to record any complaint of a back injury which she said she made to them. 11. Tubic alone knows what happened, on her evidence no-one else was present. Consequently it is important to find her a credible witness, either on her own say-so (so that she seemed to be a transparent acceptable witness) or on the basis of some corroborative evidence such as contemporaneous recorded complaints, early treatment, or histories provided to doctors. 12. Tubic said that she injured herself on 28 December 1999, just after Christmas. She said that the Serbian friends with whom she worked were not working on that day. She said that they were on holidays, that she told them together how the accident had happened when they returned to work in January 2000. None of this was corroborated by either fellow employee, and the records furthermore showed that one of the nominated Serbian employees whom Tubic said was on holidays at the time, was at work on 28 December. 13. The respondent's submissions understandably focused on the applicant's credit. Counsel submitted that at every point where her evidence could have been corroborated, she was left without support. There was no corroboration in any area where the respondent could have tested her evidence. Any corroboration was limited to the evidence of her daughter to which I will come in due course. The respondent submitted that all the doctors at the Alpha Family Health Care Centre seemed to have got it wrong. None of them reported her back injury; they did not record any work-related injury; and it was only after she left there (having consulted a solicitor), only after she consulted Dr Marinkovich that a detailed and full history was recorded. 14. Furthermore, all three of her fellow employees seemed to have got it wrong. Dr Yeoh is the psychiatrist who treated Tubic in July 1997, whose handwritten notes and the report dated 24 September 1997 (addressed to Dr Monk at the Alpha Family Health Care) are now Exhibit 12. In his own clinical notes he recorded an interview with the aid of an interpreter (who was the cousin of the applicant, a person named as Zoran Golub), an attendance at 11.40 on 24 September 1997. This detail was denied by the applicant. She said that her son had attended with her and had acted as the interpreter. The doctor recorded that in 1994 a grenade had fallen on her house. No-one was killed. She had been in the basement and that she had been afraid after that and that she could not sleep. All these details were denied. It was put to Tubic fairly and she said it was not true. It was suggested to the applicant's daughter who said she could not remember the details and denied some of the facts. It seems to me extraordinary (no, incredible) that Dr Yeoh could have invented such a history, that the details as he recorded them were not only inaccurate, but totally false. 15. The respondent also submitted that for the applicant to succeed, that Dr Daries' notes would have to be wrong, because he recorded in his clinical notes that the injury had occurred one month ago, that is, before Tubic's second period of employment with the respondent. Dr Daries agreed that he may have made a mistake, but in re-examination it seemed clear that he was not persuaded he had. The respondent submitted that the evidence of the three employees contradicted the applicant's evidence; for example, as to the time of their presence together at work and as to the cause of the injury. They alleged that she told them that she did not know how the incident had occurred until well after the date in question. Furthermore, the applicant made no back complaint to the Alpha Medical Centre at Liverpool, and no mention of any work injury. All these matters the respondent submitted reflect badly on the credit of the applicant. 16. In the applicant's submissions, Mr Swinton observed that the evidence of the three co-workers was central and critical to the respondent's case and therefore the Court needed to examine closely their evidence to determine whether it was persuasive and trustworthy. He pointed to what he would have me regard as serious internal inconsistencies and, while there were (in my estimation) some minor inconsistencies in the evidence, both within each witness's evidence and comparing the evidence of one witness with the other, the general thrust and content of the evidence was clear and simple. One would have to ask the question why would it be that two co-workers who shared the same ethnic background and were friends of the applicant would want to construct their evidence to ensure that the applicant failed in her claim. Mr Swinton said that perhaps there was some motivation which would lead me to be suspicious, some reason why these two ladies would want me to doubt that the incident had occurred. I do not recall this being put to either of the witnesses, but in any event, there was no suggestion of any unpleasantness or conflict between Tubic on the one hand, and Nana Dedic or Svetlana Ivanesevic on the other. Th Applicant's Evidence 17. Mara Tubic was born in Croatia, but of Serbian origin. She is a widow and about 50 years of age. She has two adult children. She moved from Croatia to Serbia because of the war in 1995, and came to Australia in September 1996, unable to converse in English, and it would seem that she is still very restricted in her use of English. She was employed as a room attendant by the respondent from February to October 1998 and, when she left, there was some question as to the circumstances under which she left, whether there had been a disagreement, unpleasantness or a misunderstanding. That question, to my mind, does not seem relevant in these proceedings. 18. She was re-employed on 13 December 1999, as a room attendant, and was working on 28 December when, she said, she sustained an injury. She said that at about 11.30 in the morning she accidentally hit her right foot on the trolley which she was using to store the various linens and cleaning equipment she needed. She was wearing shoes (as requested by her supervisor) with shoelaces. She said she was walking quickly out of one of the rooms. The trolley was across the hall. She was in a hurry. Check-out was by 1 o'clock. She bumped the left wheel of the trolley with her right foot. She said she was startled. She grabbed the trolley with both hands, twisted slightly and injured her back. She described the pain in the top of her foot and in her toes as enormous. She continued working to finish the job. She had lunch in the canteen where, she said, no-one who could speak Serbian was present. 19. After lunch (which was between 1 and 2 o'clock) she continued cleaning the toilets, vacuuming every room and tidying the corridors. She worked on, despite the pain in the right foot and lumbosacral spine. She had problems working, but she continued. She made no report on 28 December 1999 because her two Serbian speaking friends, she said, were on holidays; namely, Svetlana Ivanesevic and Nina Dedic. She said that she told them together when they had returned from holidays, and that Svetlana Ivanesevic had told her not to tell the supervisor or she would be given no further work. 20. The details of the injury and the circumstances in which she had sustained it was expanded somewhat in cross-examination. The trolley (photos of which appear in Exhibit 20) was a small one with four wheels. The wheels were about seven or eight inches in diameter, though Exhibit 20 records that the distance between floor level and the lower tray level was 21 centimetres. Tubic said that she hit the wheel with her right foot, grabbed the handrail of the trolley, moved to the right and twisted her back. She said she was running, working fast, and that her right foot went under the base of the trolley, hitting the wheel - something like a football kick. She said that the impact had been hard and strong, that the blow was with the tip of her toes, and that she felt (as she said again) enormous pain at the site of impact and then further up the foot. 21. The applicant worked on 29 December 1999, though her foot was swelling and changing in colour. She worked on till 4 January, though she was away from work on 31 December and 1 January. She did not consult a doctor until she visited the Alpha Family Health Care on 5 January 2000. She had been receiving treatment at that centre from before September 1997, and until the end of January 2000. She had been treated there by a number of doctors, including Dr Monk and Dr Daries. One of them, Dr Monk, had referred her for psychiatric treatment to Dr Yeoh in September 1997 for depression. She had visited that health care centre regularly between 1998 and 1999, as can be seen from Exhibits 6, 7 and 8. She had been there for headaches, heart palpitations, a left knee problem and depression. These doctors were her general practitioners. 22. Tubic consulted a doctor at the centre on 5 January 2000 (as can be seen from Exhibit 7, though the handwriting is hard to interpret). It does however seem clear that no history of a work injury or any history of back injury was recorded on that day. She saw Dr Daries on 6 January 2000 and in court he interprets the handwriting to read, x-ray, no bony damage, trauma one month ago, continue Orudis. She returned there on 9 January, 21 January and 28 January. On the last visit, she was given a WorkCover certificate which recorded that she had an accident at work. The certificate is part of Exhibit 8. On 19 January, when the applicant attended the centre, Dr Bright fitted a half-cast to her foot. While the initial x-ray had shown no problems, a second x-ray seemed to have disclosed that she had a fracture. 23. Tubic was away from work from 6 January to 13 January, as can be seen from Exhibits 21 and 22. Itana Criado gave evidence that she saw that Tubic's foot was swollen and told her to take some time off. Tubic was rostered off on 14 January, and returned to work on 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 January. She said that she did not report the injury to her employer until she told her two fellow employees when they returned from holidays, and that her failure to report was because she thought she would get better, and in any event, she wanted to work. 24. Tubic consulted Dr Marinkovich on 31 January 2000. His clinical notes are Exhibit 5 and his report is Exhibit C. From his notes it appears that he was told on 31 January that on 28 December 1999 Tubic had been working as a room attendant; that she had hit her right foot on a trolley; that she had twisted her body and sustained back pain; that the next day she had consulted a doctor, been x-rayed on 6 January, returned to the doctor on 21 January to be told that she had a fracture and that she had stopped work on 21 January. Dr Marinkovich's notes contain a body chart dated 31 January on which he recorded the applicant had injured her ankle and foot, and had a problem in the lower back. He recorded that she had been pushing a trolley to do her work, that she had hit the right foot against the trolley, and that at the time she had twisted her body and felt pain in the lower back. On 31 January she complained of low back pain, that she had problems with prolonged standing, sitting and walking. Mirijana Tubic 25. The applicant's evidence was supported by her daughter Mirijana who was born in September 1981. She was invited to remember their life before coming to Australia, that is, before 1996. She denied that they had suffered any damage to their home in Croatia. She said that their family life had been good, that there had been no emotional problems. She also said that after 1996, after their arrival in Australia, she was not aware of any emotional problem her mother suffered. I should observe that at this stage Mirijana would have been about 15 or 16. She agreed that her mother had sometimes been depressed, but her mother had been isolated by being unable to speak English and by not working. 26. Mirijana was asked about what had happened in December 1999. She did not remember the exact date but said it had been close to New Year's Eve. Her mother had hit and injured her foot. She had come home from work limping, with her foot red and swollen, and had told her that she had hit it on the trolley. Her mother had continued to work, though she was limping, and her daughter had brought her ice-packs to put on the foot. She was no better within a couple of days, so Mirijana had suggested that her mother see a doctor. The daughter was doing the cleaning, the cooking and housework. She said that her mother had also complained of back pain, and that she had never complained of this previously. They had visited a doctor at the Alpha Medical Centre and had been treated by a Dr Guirgis, she thought. Mirijana had taken her mother for other consultations and she had complained to the doctor both of a foot problem and back pain. 27. In cross-examination, Mirijana said that she did not remember whether her mother had told the doctors that she had hurt her back. She also said that her mother had not told her on the day on which she had injured her foot that she also had a back problem. I found Mirijanas' evidence to be simple, direct and quite uncomplicated. Her memory was not clear about her mother's back complaint to the doctors, and I refer to the transcript of her evidence at pages 15 and 20. Her mother had said that her back problems had commenced on the day of the injury, yet when she came home, she made no complaint on that day of a back injury, according to her daughter, and I refer to the daughter's evidence (at page 20) on the third day of the hearing. Mirijana's evidence as to the circumstances of her mother's injury was not a primary source. She was reliant on her mother's evidence as to how the incident had occurred, though of course not reliant on that evidence as to the limping, the redness and the swelling on the foot. I note that Mirijana did not remember what day this had occurred, except that it had occurred some time close to New Year's Day. The Other Three Employees 28. (1.) Like the applicant, Nina Dedic was a room attendant who spoke Serbian. Her evidence seemed to be simple and direct, without any embellishment. She was certain of some matters, and unable to remember others. She was impressively vague about some details. I had no sense that she was constructing her evidence either beforehand or as she went along. 29. Dedic made a statement on 3 March 2000, as did Svetlana Ivanesevic. Their statements are Exhibits 13 and 14. A statement dated 28 February 2000 was made by Aitana Criado, the housekeeper, supervisor. These three statements, being made impressively close to the date of the alleged injury, appear to be reliable. 30. Nina Dedic was not at work on 28 December 1999, but she was not on holidays. In her written statement she said that she did not recall that she was at work on Tuesday, 28 December. She found out that Tubic had foot problem a couple of days later, when she returned to work. I do not remember the exact date. She did remember however Tubic telling her that she had a sore foot. She thought it was her right foot, but she was not sure. She recalled that Mara only told her that her foot was sore, saying that she did not know what had caused it. I clearly remember her saying to me in words to the effect 'I did not hit it on anything or twist it'. 31. Her statement records that Tubic had told her she had seen a doctor, that the doctor thought the problem was arthritis. This does not appear in any of the doctor's records which I have seen. 32. Dedic also recalled that on some mornings afterwards, she had complained that her foot was sore, though Dedic had not paid any attention to her on those occasions. Approximately a week or a few days later, at morning tea, Tubic had mentioned that she had hit her foot on the trolley. She did not give any further details, only that she may have hit her foot causing the soreness. 33. Dedic gave evidence of four separate conversations. The first was when she noticed Tubic's limping at work. This was a conversation which took place between herself and Tubic. No-one else was present. Tubic had said that her foot was sore. Dedic asked whether she had hit it or twisted it, to which Tubic had replied that she did not know. It was just sore. On this occasion, Dedic observed that the foot was a little swollen and red. She did not remember when this conversation had occurred, though it had been in the morning. She did not know the date; she did not know whethere it was in the new year or before Christmas. 34. The second conversation was one in which she acted as an interpreter to Tubic in speaking to Aitana Criado. She said that Criado had asked Tubic what had happened to her foot, but she did not remember what was said by way of reply. 35. The third conversation was with Tubic about her doctor. Dedic gave evidence that she asked Tubic whether she had seen a doctor. Tubic had replied that she had. Dedic asked what the doctor had said, and Tubic said that the doctor had told her it was arthritis and that he had given her tablets. 36. The fourth conversation took place after Tubic had been off work and had come back to work. They spoke about her foot. Dedic said that Tubic told her that she thought she had hit her foot on the trolley. Dedic said that she had laughed because she thought that her friend had been joking. She said words to the effect, You can't hit your foot on the trolley. You push it from the front. There's rubber round the trolley. Her memory was there had been no reply to this exchange. 37. (2.) The written evidence of Svetlana Ivanesevic is contained in Exhibit 14, and her oral evidence followed Dedic's. She was a supervisor, but ranked below Aitana Criado. She too spoke Serbian. Contrary to Tubic's evidence, she was at work on 28 December 1999. She said that she saw Tubic at morning tea and at lunch on that day. Nothing was reported to her, and she noticed nothing. She worked on 28, 29 and 30 December, 2 and 3 January, and was away from work from 4 to 9 January. Her statement (Exhbit 14) was made on 3 March 2000. 38. Ivanesvic said in oral evidence that she had had a conversation with Tubic which had taken place at morning tea in the staffroom, about the middle of January 2000. It had been about Tubic's foot. She said that Tubic had shown her her foot. It had been a little swollen and a little red. She had told her that she did not know how it had happened. She had asked whether she had seen a doctor, and Tubic had said that it was arthritis and that she was on antibiotics. She denied that she had told Tubic not to tell Criado because she might not ask her to come back to work. 39. Tubic made no back complaint to Ivanesevic, despite her evidence that the back problem had begun on the day of the accident itself. 40. The evidence of these two women contradict the evidence of Tubic. They were not on holidays over Christmas; they did not receive any complaint or history of an injury while they were together with her, they said; they did not hear any mention of a work-related injury; one said she did not warn Tubic not to report the injury, not to tell Aitana for fear of losing her job; and the other denied that she heard Svetlana saying this. They both denied that they received any evidence of the circumstances of the injury, of her kicking the trolley, until well after the incident. 41. (3.) Aitana Maria Criado (whose statement is Exhibit 25) also gave oral evidence. She was the princpal supervisor on duty from Monday to Friday. She employed Tubic on two separate occasions. The first period ended in circumstances which were disputed but which seemed to be a misunderstanding arising out of their language problems. Criado was not at work between 28 December 1999 and 3 January 2000. She said that the first knowledge she had of any problem was in early January, on the 4th. She saw that Tubic's foot was red, and that by the next day there was a lot of swelling. She made an entry in the work diary. This diary is Exhibit 24, and the entry on 4 January reads as follow: Mara - at 1.30 pm while having lunch Mara showed me her foot, that looked a little swollen on top and red. I asked her if she had missed the step while walking or hit it with something. She said no, she did not know why it was red. No bruising on it. 42. This was the first notice which Criado had of any problem. In oral evidence, Criado said that on 4 January, she had asked Tubic whether she knew what had happened. Had she been bitten by an insect? Had she twisted her foot or hit it? Tubic had shrugged her shoulders and moved her hands saying, I don't know. She gave evidence also that between 19 December and January 2000, Svetlana Ivanesevic had had one day public holiday and two days rostered off, and Nina Dedic had not been on holidays. She also gave evidence from her diary (Exhibit 23) that on 28 December 1999 Ivanesvic and Tubic had been at work together. Finally she said, that she had not received any complaint of a back problem. Observations 43. In the light of this evidence, I make the following observations. 44. Firstly, from Exhibit 20 and the five photographs of the trolley in question, it is difficult to see how the injury could have occurred. Tubic sustained a fracture on the instep of the foot, on the distal metatarsal joint. The base of the trolley stands 21 centimetres off the ground and the four wheels are flush with the side. I am not saying that an injury could not have occurred, but it would seem to me improbable that an injury to the instep of the foot would occur when a worker accidentally comes in contact with the base of the trolley or with the wheels of the trolley. Ankle or shin, or toes I could well understand, but instep seems more improbable. 45. Secondly, the applicant complained that on 28 December she had sustained an injury to her foot as well as a back injury. On 6 January D Daries recorded that the former had happened one month before. There is no mention in his notes of any back injury (and I refer to Exhibit 7). Tubic said that she had told Dr Daries, and then she agreed that she had not. Her evidence can be read in the first day of transcript at page 22 and in the second day of transcript at pages 23 to 24. She made no mention of any back problem to her fellow employees. She said this herself as can be seen in the first day of transcript at pages 20 to 22. 46. Thirdly, the applicant explained her failure to report the injury on 28 December by claiming that the two Serbian speakers at work were on holidays. This was not true. Neither of them were on holidays. Dedic was off that day, but returned some days later. Ivanesevic was working on 28 December. 47. Fourthly, Tubic said that on their return from holidays, she told Dedic and Ivanesevic (both at the same time) about the work injury. Her evidence was not supported by either of them. According to their evidence, they were not together when each of them was told about the injury, and in the beginning neither of them was told that this was a work-related injury. 48. Fifthly, Tubic said that Ivanesevic had told her, in Dedic's presence, not to mention her work injury to the supervisor or she would receive no more work. Both Dedic and Ivanesevic denied this. 49. Sixthly, the applicant had been attending the Alpha Health Care Centre for three years before the alleged incident on 28 December, and for many different problems; for reflux, burns, depression, headaches. She had been referred to Dr Day, a cardiologist, and Dr Yeoh, a psychiatrist. Despite her lack of facility with English, she was apparently coping well, accompanied by someone to translate, and the doctors had obviously been able to treat Tubic over the years. She attended again for this foot injury, from 5 January through till 28 January when her foot was placed in a fibre cast. Then suddenly she changed to Dr Marinkovich. 50. I note that Dr Zepanic (who said that he was treating Tubic on referral from Dr Marinkovich) said that he saw her for the first time on 24 January, some few days before she left the practice at Alpha Health Care Centre. On 31 January, she travelled from the Liverpool area to Petersham to consult Dr Marinkovich. One cannot help but ask why she made this change. She said she could not speak English with Dr Bright and that she had found a Serbian-speaking doctor, that her daughter had began studying and her son had started working, so they were not available to attend with her. I found this explanation unconvincing. She had consulted a solicitor before seeing Dr Marinkovich and Dr Zepanic; she had gone to see Dr Zepanic on 24 January; she continued to visit the Alpha Centre once more, and then began to consult to Dr Marinkovich. The reason she gave for this change I found unconvincing. 51. Seventhly, Tubic agreed that she had had some psychiatric problems when she came to Australia, but said that she was better after she had begun to work, that everything was fine and normal. She did not remember taking medication for psychiatric problems in 1998 or 1999; she did not remember a history of nightmares recorded by Dr Monk; she remembered one visit to Dr Yeoh in September 1997 when, she said, she had been accompanied by her son. She said that Dr Yeoh could not understand her, though he did recorded a very detailed history, and a lot of facts which later proved to be accurate. She denied the grenade incident, and denied having bad memories of Croatia. However, as it turned out, it seems that Zoran Goblic interpreted for her rather than her son, that Dr Yeoh recorded detailed facts and events (as can be seen from Exhibits 12 and 8), and that from the notes of Dr Monk and Dr Yeoh I concluded that Tubic had significant psychiatric problems before any incident in December 1999. 52. She failed to give a meaningful history to Dr Zepanic, to Dr Maguire or to Dr Haralamvous (Exhibit 18). Consequently, their opinion in support of the psychiatric problem caused by her employment cannot be trusted. The glib and ritualised evidence of Dr Zepanic was also not persuasive. The credit of the applicant was thereby undermined. Her evidence could not be accepted without corroboration. 53. Finally, the applicant complained that she had also sustained a back injury on 28 December. She did not tell her daughter, she did not tell her fellow employees and she did not tell the doctors. She said that she told her friends at work about her foot injury, but said nothing about her back. It seems incredible that she had immediate lumbosacral problems but her daughter, her fellow employees and her doctors were given no history. 54. I have concluded that in the circumstances I cannot be satisfied on the evidence that Tubic suffered an injury to her foot at work on 28 December 1999, or at all. This is not to say she did not suffer same injury to her foot, but it was not a work-related injury. I am not satisfied that she sustained a back injury at work, or as a consequence of the injury to her right foot. Nor am I satisfied that she suffered a psychological injury as a result of any alleged injury at work. 55. I enter an award for the respondent. Mr Swinton instructed by Martin Bell & Co. appeared for the applicant Mr Hoeben S C instructed by Church & Grace appeared for the respondent