When Emotion Was Used Against Me: Re-Reading Self-Drafted Legal Brief - July 2021

In July 2021, I sent what I believed was a comprehensive legal brief to my workers compensation solicitor.

It wasn’t professionally drafted.

It wasn’t clinically structured.

It wasn’t emotionally neutral.

It was written by an injured worker who had been navigating a complex statutory scheme without being properly informed of her rights, without procedural guidance, and without the protective mechanisms the law requires to be in place.

It was written by someone in prolonged distress.

It was ignored.

Today, I have re-read that document (Document 177). What I see now is not “hysteria” or “overreaction.” I see an “unrepresented” worker attempting — in the only language she had available at the time — to articulate serious breaches of statutory obligation across multiple legislative frameworks - this time, to my legal representative.

What I lacked was not credibility.

What I lacked was legal translation.

⸻

What That Document Was Actually Saying (In Legal Terms)

When stripped of emotion and framed properly, the July 2021 brief was alleging:

1. Failure to Comply with Injury Management Obligations

Under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, insurers and employers have mandatory obligations to:

• Establish and implement an injury management plan

• Appoint a case manager

• Cooperate with the worker and nominated treating doctor

• Facilitate a return-to-work program

My document was alleging that:

• A case manager was not assigned from July 2020.

• The injury management plan was not implemented.

• No effective return-to-work plan was actioned.

• Communication requests were repeatedly ignored.

• My treating professionals were excluded from collaboration.

In legal language, that is not emotional distress.

That is alleged statutory non-compliance.

⸻

2. Denial of Procedural Fairness and Right to Information

The document cited repeated failures to provide information required under Chapter 6 of the 1998 Act.

Translated properly, this is an allegation that:

• The worker was deprived of access to information relevant to her claim.

• Decision-making processes were not transparent.

• Natural justice obligations were compromised.

A worker cannot meaningfully participate in a statutory scheme if critical information is withheld.

That is not weakness.

That is structural disadvantage.

⸻

3. Interference with Privacy and Consent

The brief referenced:

• Use of private communications out of context

• Disclosure of health information beyond consent

• Access to personal material without lawful basis  

In legal framing, this engages:

• The Privacy Act 1988

• The Workplace Surveillance Act 2005

• Potential breaches of consent parameters in medical release forms

When consent is limited in scope and duration, any disclosure beyond that scope may constitute an interference with privacy.

At the time, I wrote: “This is harassment.”

Today I would say: This may constitute unauthorised access and disclosure of personal information contrary to statutory protections.

⸻

4. Protection from Dismissal and Reinstatement Rights

The brief referenced Part 8 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, including:

• Section 241 – application for reinstatement

• Section 244 – presumption as to reason for dismissal

• Section 246 – continuity of service

What I was asking for — emotionally — was dignity.

What I was asserting — legally — was a statutory right to seek reinstatement and continuity, especially given no protective measures were put in place to stop the harassment from the stressor, the cause of my claim. 

I believe allowing the continuation of harm from the stressor, now under workers compensation regulations, was intentional and “constructive”. It was also illegal and reckless, not only from the employer, but also the insurer. 

And those are not sentimental requests.

They are legislated protections.

See: 

Gaslighting and harassment continue under workers compensation regulations - June 2020; 

Email address created strictly for Return to Work communication - July 2020;

APVO & a court registrar’s response - September 2020; 

Enter unSafeWork NSW & “that” RTW plan I drafted - October 2020

⸻

5. Allegations of Financial Disadvantage

The document referred to financial hardship, suspension of loan repayments, inability to pay basic expenses, and the consequences of delayed weekly payments.

In legal language, this raises questions about:

• Delays contrary to statutory claims handling standards

• Potential breach of insurer obligations

• Causation between administrative non-compliance and financial loss

Emotionally, I described humiliation.

Legally, this is alleged economic loss arising from statutory breach.

⸻

Why It Was Ignored

Looking back, I understand something difficult but important:

The legal system privileges structured language over lived distress.

A traumatised worker citing legislation alongside expressions of fear and betrayal does not look “strategic.” It looks unstable.

But trauma does not invalidate substance.

It simply obscures it.

And when a solicitor fails to extract the legal issues from the emotional narrative, the worker remains unheard.

⸻

The Deeper Issue: Information Asymmetry

The most serious issue underlying that 2021 document is this:

Critical information about my statutory entitlements was not explained to me by either the employer or the insurer.

I did not:

• Know what should have been implemented under the injury management framework.

• Understand what the absence of a case manager legally meant.

• Fully grasp the procedural consequences of delay.

• Know how to properly frame non-compliance within the Personal Injury Commission process.

I was navigating a complex statutory regime without being equipped to do so.

That is not a personal failure.

That is systemic imbalance.

⸻

Trauma and Legal Language

When people endure prolonged psychological injury within adversarial systems, their communication reflects that strain.

Hypervigilance.

Urgency.

Over-documentation.

Emotional intensity.

Those are trauma responses.

They are also the predictable consequence of being excluded from procedural transparency.

What I needed in July 2021 was:

• A trauma-informed legal practitioner.

• Clear explanation of statutory rights.

• Structured reframing of my allegations.

• Strategic guidance through the PIC process.

What I received was silence.

⸻

Reclaiming the Record

Document 177 is no longer a source of embarrassment.

It is evidence of:

• A worker attempting to assert statutory rights.

• A person trying to translate harm into law.

• A citizen invoking legislation because institutions were not complying with it.

The emotion in that document does not undermine its seriousness.

It proves the human cost of non-compliance.

⸻

A Final Reflection

I am no longer writing from panic.

I am writing with clarity.

The difference is not that the facts have changed.

The difference is that I now understand the legal architecture I was trying to invoke.

And that understanding matters.

Because injured workers should not have to become legal scholars just to be heard.

⸻

Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 177.

 

KEY PUBLICATION:

SIRA NSW - Standards of Practice: Expectations for insurer claims administration and conduct.

https://www.sira.nsw.gov.au/workers-compensation-claims-guide/legislation-and-regulatory-instruments/other-instruments/standards-of-practice

SIRA NSW Closed My Complaint — The Phone Never Rang - July 2021

“Anything is better than lies and deceit!” 

― Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

It was on 9 July 2021 that I received an email from the manager of enforcement and prosecutions at the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) advising that my complaint had been reviewed by Enforcement & Prosecutions — and closed.

Just like that.

After months of providing documents.

After setting out detailed allegations.

After asking for transparency in a system that had already left me injured, financially destabilised, and unheard.

The outcome letter stated:

“On the information provided… there is insufficient evidence that demonstrate a possible breach of the workers compensation legislation to a standard required at law.”  

Did they view the evidence? I’m rightly suspicious that SIRA NSW did not legitimately review my evidence. 

It goes on to say negligence is not within scope, corruption is for ICAC, liability is for the Personal Injury Commission, and anything else falls outside SIRA’s jurisdiction.  

And with that:

“SIRA is unable to take this matter any further… SIRA has now closed your complaint.”  

Closed.

But what stayed with me that day was not only the substance of the decision.

It was the phone call that never happened.

⸻

“I tried to call you…”

In the email, I was told by the SIRA NSW manager that my phone “rang out.”  

Shortly after, I was told my mobile had been “switched off.”  

Except it hadn’t.

And hereby lies the deception from the very regulator. The public have a right to know why. 

I had the phone with me.

I was waiting.

I included the call log in my records and wrote a note:

“No phone call heard or received – I had the phone with me waiting – how can we in society seek justice and procedural fairness when the deceit is in the very government departments meant to protect workers and enforce the law on organisations?”  

The screenshot of my call log that day shows no missed call from SIRA at the relevant time.  

It may seem small to some.

A technicality.

A crossed wire.

A telecommunications glitch.

It definitely wasn’t. 

When you are a worker navigating a system that holds all the power — insurers, employers, regulators — small inconsistencies are not small.

They are everything.

Because trust is everything.

⸻

Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction

Yet the same poster SIRA publishes — the one summarising obligations under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act — makes clear that SIRA regulates workers compensation insurance in NSW.  

And the University’s own webpage outlines the workers compensation process for injured staff.  

So I asked a simple question in my email that afternoon:

“It does come under your jurisdiction. Otherwise explain the attached to me.”  

I was asking for clarity.

⸻

What I Was Never Told

There is something else that must be said.

Critical information was withheld from me — by both my employer and the insurer.

I was abandoned to navigate a complex statutory scheme blind.

No one explained the pathway.

No one explained the consequences.

No one explained what I was agreeing to.

I did not know what I was doing.

I did not know what entitlements I was supposed to be receiving.

I told the workers compensation solicitor that I did not want a Whole Person Impairment (WPI) assessment. I wanted the agreed injury management plan implemented.

The response from the paralegal was that they do both WPI and medical expenses together “to save time.”

To save time.

Whose time?

Because while processes were being streamlined administratively, I was being denied my statutory entitlements and rights.

I was trying to recover.

Instead, I found myself in an adversarial system I never chose to enter.

I had no voice.

I was further degraded, patronised, and discriminated against in a process that felt designed to exhaust rather than support.

And that is the confronting truth.

I found myself in this situation because my employer took bullying, harassment, and discrimination to a whole new level — adverse action that triggered injury — and then I was left to fight inside a system that treats injured workers as file numbers.

No one should have to learn the architecture of regulatory law just to access their own entitlements.

No one should be left blind inside a statutory maze.

⸻

The Timing

The letter also noted my workers compensation matter was listed for hearing at the Personal Injury Commission.  

Three days after the complaint was closed.

Three days.

What message does that send to an injured worker?

That regulatory concerns are “insufficient” just before a liability hearing?

That procedural issues are compartmentalised away from the lived impact they create?

I had provided extensive material. Records. Evidence. Chronology.

Yet the conclusion was that there was “insufficient evidence” to demonstrate a possible breach to the required standard at law.  

No further explanation.

No breakdown of analysis.

No engagement with the substance beyond scope limitations.

Just closure.

⸻

The Human Cost

I left an angry voicemail that day.

I was tired.

I was scared.

I felt cornered.

When regulators close files, they close them administratively.

When workers receive those letters, something else closes too.

Hope.

We do not expect perfection.

But we do expect independence.

We expect transparency.

We expect procedural fairness.

If the body tasked with regulating insurers says it has no scope…

If the safety regulator says it has already sent an outcome…

If the tribunal says it only deals with liability…

Where does systemic accountability sit?

Who holds the centre?

⸻

Indifference

There is something more dangerous than incompetence.

Indifference.

Indifference to the human being behind the claim number.

Indifference to the power imbalance.

Indifference to the emotional, financial and psychological toll of procedural opacity.

Indifference is the biggest disease of our time.

It is at crisis level.

When institutions become indifferent, justice becomes theoretical.

And workers become collateral.

⸻

An Issue Bigger Than Me

This is not only about my claim number.

It is about the architecture of oversight in New South Wales.

The system is designed so that:

• Employers notify insurers within 48 hours.  

• Insurers manage liability decisions.

• SIRA regulates the scheme.  

• The PIC determines disputes.  

On paper, it is neat.

In lived experience, it is fragmentation.

If each body says “not us,” the worker is left holding the weight.

⸻

I Am Not Closing This

The email from SIRA concluded:

“If you remain dissatisfied… you can escalate your complaint to the NSW Ombudsman.”  

Another avenue.

Another form.

Another process.

And so the cycle continues.

But here is what I know:

Procedural fairness is not a technicality.

Trust in regulators is not optional in a functioning democracy.

And when injured workers begin to believe the watchdogs do not bark, something far deeper is damaged.

On that Friday in July 2021, the regulator closed my complaint.

But the phone never rang.

And I am still asking the same question written in document 176 of my evidentiary documents:

How can we seek justice when the very departments meant to protect workers and enforce the law appear unwilling — or unable — to see what is in front of them?

This is my story.

My voice.

And I will not let it be closed.

——

Reviewing Document 176

When I review Document 176 now, something else stands out.

In my reply to the SIRA Manager of Enforcement and Prosecutions, I included a screenshot from my employer’s website explaining the workers compensation process.

The page clearly states that injured staff should obtain a certificate of capacity and complete an Employee Claim Form obtained from Human Resources or the WHS team to commence the claims process.

So here is the question that will not go away:

If the employer’s own webpage states the claim form is to be obtained from the WHS team — why did the assigned Return to Work Coordinator, as set out in my Injury Management Plan dated 25 June 2020, not provide me with that form?  

Why was I left to discover its existence myself?

On 2 October 2020 — months into the claim — I had to email Catholic Church Insurance asking why I had not been informed about the claim form and why there had been so much delay in communicating with me.  

I was only told about the form the day before — via WIRO — not by my employer, not by the Return to Work Coordinator, not by the insurer.  

Even prior to that, I was emailing for updates in September 2020, asking simply what the next steps were and asking who my replacement contact (ie. the case manager) would be.  

Silence.

Delay.

Fragmented communication.

And what does the Injury Management Plan say insurers must do?

They must establish the injury management plan, consult with the worker, provide information about the plan, liaise with all parties, and monitor compliance.  

Yet two months into the claim, there was no effective case manager enforcing compliance on all parties and keeping the claim moving.

No one provided the claim form.

No one ensured statutory steps were followed.

No one ensured the Injury Management Plan was properly implemented.

Instead, I was left blind inside a statutory system that carries serious financial and legal consequences.

And when a claim form is not provided, when communication is withheld, when an insurer delays assigning or maintaining a case manager, when statutory obligations are not enforced — that is not a minor administrative oversight.

That is non-compliance with statutory obligations.

It is the denial of access to entitlements.

It is systemic failure.

So I ask again:

If an employer does not provide the claim form as required.

If an insurer fails to ensure compliance with the Injury Management Plan and statutory processes.

If a worker is left to discover fundamental procedural requirements through WIRO rather than through the parties responsible.

Is that not within SIRA NSW’s regulatory jurisdiction?

Because if it is not — then what, exactly, is?

Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 176.

SIRA NSW Jurisdiction

HR senior executive staff were the stressors that triggered the claim - I required guarding from certain individuals - but what about the RTW Co-ordinator and the WHS & Wellbeing manager?

See also:

Injury Management Plan - A Legally Binding Agreement - June 2020 

Email address created strictly for Return to Work communication - July 2020  

Enter IRO - September 2020

CCI - October 2020

Enter unSafeWork NSW & “that” RTW plan I drafted - October 2020

The WHS turning point I will never forget - March 2021