This is what systemic harm looks like
There was a moment in my journey through the system where something shifted within me.
It’s the moment I realised:
I am not being helped.
I am being harmed.
---
The Illusion of Protection
Workers compensation is meant to be a safety net.
A no-fault system.
A recovery system.
A system designed to protect people at their most vulnerable.
But what happens when the system itself becomes unsafe?
What happens when the institutions meant to uphold the law begin to erode it instead?
---
What Happened After the Examination
In my previous post, “The Examination I Was Not Prepared For,” I described an experience that should never occur in a system designed to protect injured workers. See https://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/03/the-examination-i-was-not-prepared-for.html
But the examination didn’t end when the appointment finished.
It followed me:
Into the system;
Into the process;
Into every interaction that came after.
Because what happened next revealed something even more confronting:
It wasn’t just the examination that caused harm.
It was the system around it.
---
The Moment Trust Collapsed
After that experience, something shifted in me.
Until then, despite everything I had already endured — the failures of the insurer, the employer, the regulators — I still held onto one belief:
That somewhere, within the tribunal process, there would be procedural fairness.
That there would be a place where:
- instructions meant something
- safeguards were upheld
- and the worker would finally be treated with basic dignity
But that belief didn’t survive what happened next.
What replaced it was something deeper:
A loss of trust — not just in a process, but in the system itself.
---
A Small Detail That Wasn’t Small
In early October 2021, I contacted the Personal Injury Commission, to provide feedback — the kind systems claim they want.
Because what had just occurred was not only distressing, it was preventable.
I explained:
- I had been given one time for the IME
- the assessor provided a different time
- I was told I could bring a support person
- when my support arrived, she was refused
On paper, it looked minor, a simple miscommunication.
But lived experience tells a different story.
It was humiliating.
Destabilising.
And entirely avoidable.
As I wrote at the time:
“This has been another example of poor communication and lack of support from the NSW government system… given what I have been through, I do not have confidence it will be fixed for future process and sanity of workers.”
That sentence didn’t come only from frustration.
It came from pattern recognition.
---
The Denial of a Basic Safeguard
The most distressing part wasn’t the time confusion.
It was the moment my support person was told to leave.
I had relied on the written instructions.
They were clear.
I followed them.
And yet, in the moment I needed that support most, it was taken away.
Abruptly and without warning.
I was left alone.
---
The Explanation That Raised More Questions
When I questioned the practitioner, why my support person was being asked to leave — despite the written instructions — I was given a response in the moment:
That sometimes workers’ compensation solicitors get it wrong.
But this was not information provided by a solicitor.
The instruction allowing a support person came directly from the Personal Injury Commission itself — from its own disputes resolution process and guidance regarding IME conduct.
That moment introduced a different kind of concern, because it was not just that the instruction was not followed.
It was that the explanation given did not align with the source of the instruction.
And that raises a simple but important question:
If the Commission’s own guidance is not being applied consistently — or is being misrepresented in practice — what does that mean for procedural fairness?
And I later asked, in writing, to the PIC:
“Why… was I denied a very important human right of a support person as per your instructions?”
There is something deeply destabilising about that experience.
Because it sends a message:
You can follow the rules — and still be unsupported.
---
When Systems Gaslight
Gaslighting isn’t just something that happens in personal relationships.
It can be systemic.
It happens when:
- you are given instructions — and then penalised for following them
- you raise concerns — and they are minimised
- you provide evidence — and it is ignored
- you experience harm — and are told the system is working as intended
Over time, the impact is cumulative.
You begin to question your own reality.
Did I misunderstand?
Did I get it wrong?
Am I the problem?
But the truth is:
The problem isn’t your perception.
The problem is the system’s inconsistency and lack of accountability.
---
Escalation Is Not Irrational — It Is a Signal
By mid-October 2021, my communications became more urgent.
More direct.
More distressed.
That shift is visible in the record.
But what is often misunderstood is this:
Escalation is not dysfunction.
It is a response to unresolved harm.
No one begins their journey in a system like this at that level.
You get there when:
- you are not heard
- you are not protected
- and the harm continues
This is not overreaction.
This is a human response to sustained systemic harm.
---
The System That Should Have Prevented This
By the time I was writing to the Personal Injury Commission in October 2021, multiple systems had already failed:
- the insurer
- the employer
- the regulator
- the safety authority
Each had a role.
Each had obligations.
And each failure compounded the next.
Instead of protection, there was:
- fragmentation
- deflection
- silence
- and, ultimately, escalation
---
This Is What Re-Traumatisation Looks Like
Re-traumatisation is not abstract.
It is lived.
It looks like:
- being denied support when you were told you could have it
- being forced to navigate contradictions while vulnerable
- having to fight for basic rights within a system designed to provide them
- being pushed to the point where your communication reflects survival, not comfort
It is the repetition of harm within the very system meant to resolve it.
And over time, it does something else.
It keeps the nervous system activated.
Alert.
Hypervigilant.
Unable to stand down.
Because the threat is never resolved.
---
The Systemic Pattern
What became clear to me — and what this blog documents — is that these were not isolated incidents.
They formed a pattern:
- inconsistent communication
- removal of safeguards
- failure to act on evidence
- absence of accountability
And perhaps most concerning:
A system that continues forward as if none of this is happening.
---
The Bigger Question
The question is not whether one IME went wrong.
The question is:
How many workers are experiencing this — without the ability to document it?
Because not everyone has the capacity to:
- compile evidence
- navigate legislation
- persist through institutional resistance
Many simply disappear from the system.
Silently.
---
This Is Not an Individual Story
This is not just my story.
It is a case study in what happens when:
- safeguards are inconsistently applied
- accountability is unclear
- and systems prioritise process over people
---
What Needs to Change
If systems are serious about:
- psychologically safe workplaces
- injury recovery
- and public trust
Then the following must be non-negotiable:
- clear, consistent communication
- enforced procedural fairness
- respect for support rights
- accountability when standards are breached
Because without these, the system itself becomes a risk.
---
Final Reflection
I entered the system as a worker seeking recovery.
I found myself navigating something else entirely.
A system that felt indistinguishable from the harm it was meant to prevent.
And that is the truth we need to confront:
When a system gaslights, retraumatises, and destabilises —
it is no longer a safety net.
It is part of the injury.
---
What the Research Now Shows
Recent academic research is beginning to reflect what many injured workers have been experiencing in practice.
A 2026 peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation examined the psychological and systemic impacts of workers’ compensation processes on injured individuals.
The findings are significant.
The study identified that:
• Workers navigating compensation systems often experience secondary psychological harm, not just from the original injury, but from the process itself
• Inconsistent communication, delays, and lack of transparency contribute to increased distress and reduced trust in institutions
• Repeated exposure to procedural stressors can lead to chronic psychological activation, including anxiety and hypervigilance
• Systems that are perceived as adversarial or dismissive can result in feelings of invalidation, loss of control, and re-traumatisation
• Importantly, the research highlights that these impacts are not isolated — they are systemic patterns, particularly where accountability mechanisms are weak or unclear
What is striking is that the study does not describe extreme or rare scenarios.
It describes patterns that closely reflect what many workers report when systems fail to respond effectively.
When a system creates the very harm it is meant to resolve — that is no longer a failure of process.
It is a failure of protection.
---
Where This Leads
What happened after the examination was not recovery.
It was escalation.
Not because I chose it.
But because the system left no other path.
And what came next would take this far beyond one examination, one complaint, or one tribunal process.
It would expose something much bigger.
The truth about what happens when systems are challenged — and fail to respond.
Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 205.
---
Reference:
Sanatkar, S., Pritchard, E., Callaway, L., et al. (2026). Factors associated with negative experiences and mental ill health during a workers’ compensation claim: A mixed methods study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-026-10364-0
