You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Sickness >> Occupational Injury Benefit 

Occupational Injury Benefit Case 1

Question At Issue:

Cumulative effect of a series of incidents.

Background:

The appellant’s claim to Occupational Injury Benefit was rejected on grounds that he had not established that his incapacity for work was caused by an accident (one specific incident) arising out of and in the course of his employment. In determining the claim, the Deciding Officer took account of the opinion of the Chief Medical Adviser for the Department of Social and Family Affairs, who was not satisfied that the appellant’s incapacity was occupational in origin. In addition, the appellant’s former employer had not accepted that the appellant had had an accident at work.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant was accompanied by his trade union representative and, at the request of the Appeals Officer, a representative of his former employer also attended. (The appellant had retired from work, on medical grounds, some six months prior to the date of the oral hearing.)

The appellant asserted that his incapacity was attributable to stress which he had experienced as a direct result of bullying/harassment in his place of work, over a period of three years. He described a number of incidents of an intimidating nature to which he had been subject, including damage to his personal belongings, having had his food interfered with, and having been given a ‘get well’ card while at work. He referred also to snide remarks which had been directed at him by his co-workers. He reported that, in spite of advice from a staff welfare officer and one of his supervisors, he had been unwilling to make a complaint as he did not want to get anyone into trouble. Consequently, he had not invoked the company’s formal complaint procedures, and only a verbal warning had been issued to those involved.

The appellant asserted that as a consequence of the bullying he experienced at work, he had become depressed, and started to drink heavily. He reported that he had attended a psychotherapist for almost a year prior to his retirement. During the same period, he had been referred to a cardiologist, under whose care he spent eight days in hospital. Ultimately, the appellant attended the company’s doctor who concluded that due to previous work related injuries, which had been compounded by stress and asthma, there were medical grounds on which to retire the appellant. The appellant argued that his retirement on health grounds was directly attributable to the bullying/harassment he had experienced at work.

In her evidence, the employer’s representative stated that the company had in place an anti-bullying/harassment policy, but that the appellant had not made a formal complaint in line with the provisions of that policy. She reported that the appellant’s former employer did not regard stress as an accident.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer examined the grounds for the Deciding Officer’s decision, the opinion of the Chief Medical Advisor in the case, and the assertion by his former employer that the appellant had not sustained an accident at work. He considered that the medical evidence on file clearly indicated that the appellant was suffering from acute stress and cardiac problems, which he maintained were directly related to the various incidents of bullying/harassment at work. He noted that during the period at issue, the appellant had been assigned light duties, in view of health considerations, while his colleagues were required to carry out the full range of duties associated with the employment. He considered that the incidents outlined by the appellant appeared to have arisen primarily as a consequence of his co-workers having taken exception to this.

The Appeals Officer considered that entitlement to benefit under the Occupational Injury Benefit Scheme is based fundamentally on an employee suffering personal injury, caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. In this case, he concluded that the apparent bullying and harassment the appellant experienced at work clearly arose out of and in the course of his employment. Furthermore, he was satisfied that the damage caused by the cumulative effect of the series of incidents outlined by the appellant was such as caused him personal injury. In this regard, he referred to a decision of the Social Security and Child Support Commissioners (UK)* where it was held that the possibility of damage caused by the cumulative effect of a series of specific incidents had to be addressed, and that even where the claimant has suffered some form of injury by process, rather than accident, a conclusion that there has been an accident causing personal injury is not ruled out. The Appeals Officer determined that the appeal in this case should succeed.

*CI/3370/1999 (J.Mesher), 15/12/00, (Starred decision
14/01), Journal of Social Security Law (2001) 8, Issue 4

Outcome:

Appeal allowed.

End of Document