Sunday, March 1, 2026

When the System Becomes the Stressor - August 2021

“Trauma is not what happens to you. It’s what happens inside you as a result of what happens to you.” – Dr. Gabor Maté


In August 2021, I wrote to government offices asking for urgent help.

Not because I didn’t understand “process.”

But because I was collapsing under a system that had already failed its legal obligations to me.


The documents speak for themselves.


One email was an appeal for accountability — raising concerns that regulators tasked with enforcing workplace safety were failing to act on psychosocial hazards and serious compliance breaches.


The other was a plea for urgent financial relief after a determination had been issued, yet payment of back-dated weekly benefits was stalled in bureaucracy.


Together, they capture something deeper than administrative frustration.


They show what happens when delay becomes harm.


The Reality Behind “Back Pay”


By July 2021, a Personal Injury Commission determination had been issued.


Weekly payments were owed. But the insurer gamed the system by issuing “back pay” from date they declined, after delaying and then declining a legitimate claim, to the date of the PIC mediation. 


I had no idea what was going on around me. But I do believe Catholic Church Insurance intended to throw a tiny bit of money at me (part of what’s legally owed anyway), while thinking they would successfully avoid their entire workers compensation statutory obligations. 


This is also what caused greater frustration and process trauma regarding my experience with workers compensation solicitors. There’s more on this topic later in my story.


For this part, as Catholic Church Insurance attempted for months to financially crush me, and undermine the entire reason the NSW Workers Compensation scheme exists, instead of funds being processed promptly, I was told the insurer required Centrelink clearance before releasing payment.


On paper, that sounds procedural.


In lived reality, it meant:


Overdue property bills

Threats of credit impairment

Inability to pay insurance and registration

Difficulty accessing prescribed medication for hypertension

Escalating family conflict caused by financial desperation

Trauma re-triggered by forced re-engagement with Centrelink

Every additional day of delay compounded both financial and psychological harm.

This is what regulators often fail to calculate:

Delay is not neutral. Delay is an active stressor.


Psychosocial Hazards Are Not Abstract


In my earlier correspondence, I raised concerns that psychosocial hazards in the workplace were not being taken seriously, and that enforcement powers available to agencies were not being properly exercised.


Psychosocial hazards are not about “hurt feelings.”


They are about:


Bullying and intimidation

Isolation and ostracisation

Misuse of health information

Abuse of power

Retaliation following injury

When these risks are unmanaged, they cause diagnosable injury.

When regulators fail to intervene, the harm escalates.

And when an injured worker is then forced into prolonged financial deprivation due to compensation delays, the workplace injury becomes a systemic injury.


Bureaucracy as Re-Trauma


One line from my email stands out:


“I can’t be told about process now. I’m in distress, crippled financially, alone and afraid.”  

That was not theatrics.

It was physiological reality.

  • My blood pressure had spiked.
  • I was experiencing dizziness and visual disturbance.
  • I had been diagnosed with hypertension related to work-induced stress.

Yet instead of stabilisation and recovery under the workers compensation scheme, I was navigating:

Legal correspondence

Regulator complaints

Ministerial escalation

Banking threats

Loan stress

Centrelink clearance processes

Workers compensation exists to prevent exactly this cascade.

When compliance fails at multiple levels — employer, insurer, regulator — the injured worker absorbs the systemic failure.


Transparency Should Not Be Punished


In my emails to ministerial offices, I emphasised that I had complied with every rule asked of me.


I provided evidence.

I engaged with process.

I sought cooperation.


What I did not receive was reciprocal compliance.


The legislation governing workers compensation and workplace safety is not optional. It is not aspirational. It is enforceable law.


When enforcement bodies fail to enforce, and insurers delay statutory entitlements, the system drifts from protection into harm.


Public confidence erodes.


And injured people are left fighting alone.


The Broader Question


This raises broader questions:


What safeguards exist to prevent payment (and back-payment) delays after formal determinations?

How are psychosocial hazards escalated when regulators decline to act?

What oversight mechanisms activate when enforcement units themselves are the subject of complaint?

At what point does delay become a breach of statutory duty?

If workplace mental health is genuinely a priority, enforcement must be real — not rhetorical.


I Survived. Many Don’t.


In one of the emails, I wrote that I may have “miraculously survived”.


That sentence was not dramatic.


It was an acknowledgment of how close prolonged financial distress, institutional silence, and untreated psychosocial injury can push a human being.


Many people do not survive this process.


That is why documentation matters.


That is why transparency matters.


That is why enforcement matters.



Final Reflection


A workers compensation scheme is supposed to provide stability after injury.


When it becomes another source of instability, something has gone deeply wrong.


This is about accountability.


If psychosocial hazards are recognised in legislation, they must be recognised in practice.


If determinations are issued, payments must follow without unnecessary harm.


And if regulators are entrusted with public power, that power must be exercised — not avoided.


Because behind every file number is a nervous system trying to survive.


And survival should never depend on how loudly someone can fight back.



Source: contemporaneous record of events - Documents 181 and 183.


SIRA NSW - Understanding the claims journey - https://www.sira.nsw.gov.au/workers-compensation-claims-guide/understanding-the-claims-journey

Thursday, February 26, 2026

When Celebration and Grief Sit in the Same Room

I reshared a LinkedIn post about a program I care deeply about.

Afterwards, I felt physically unwell.


Seeing public celebration while my own situation remains legally unresolved stirred something tender and confronting inside me.


I have been professionally invested in this institution since August 2001.


For more than two decades, I have contributed leadership, care, intellectual labour, and steady commitment to staff and students. I have supported programs, built relationships, mentored colleagues, and carried responsibility seriously.


That contribution does not disappear.


I am still part of that work.


The relationships.

The students.

The staff I support.

The long hours of care, strategy and responsibility.


There is a legally binding injury management framework connected to my employment.

There are statutory obligations that continue to exist.

I never resigned from my professional identity.

I never withdrew my commitment to a safe and lawful return.


Yet while celebration moves forward publicly, I remain in a process seeking basic compliance with obligations that were meant to protect me.


That reality has been deeply harmful.


It is difficult to describe what it feels like to devote decades of professional service, to uphold values of dignity and fairness, and then to find yourself navigating procedural failures that destabilise your health, income and sense of safety.


The grief is not abstract.


It sits in the body.

It tightens the chest.

It brings a wave of nausea that feels disproportionate to a simple LinkedIn post — until you remember what it represents.


It is the grief of knowing your contribution was real — and feeling the weight of how governance decisions have affected you.


When I reshared that post, it wasn’t endorsement.


It was presence.


A quiet way of saying:

I am still here.

I contribute.

My work matters.


I am not seeking applause.

I am not seeking public vindication.


I am seeking statutory compliance.

Structured restoration.

A return-to-work pathway that is safe, medically informed, and consistent with the law.


Nothing more.

Nothing extraordinary.

Just what already exists in legislation and agreement.


Celebration may be public.


Compliance is not optional.


Contribution does not vanish because it is inconvenient.


I remain present.

I remain professional.

And I will continue to pursue resolution through lawful, measured, and transparent means — until compliance is not aspirational, but actual.


Grief casts long shadows.

So does commitment.


See also http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/02/in-memory-of-great-teacher-legacy.html

Wednesday, February 25, 2026

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