I recently received a copy of a decision on one of our Industrial Injury cases (CI/2342/2006) which confirms that consideration whether a particular stressful event was an accidnet should be seen as a sujective rather than an objective test.

Commissioner Jacobs states

“3. The tribunal decided that the claimant had not suffered ‘personal injury caused … by accident’. … The chairman correctly recorded that occupational stress of itself was not sufficient to satisfy that legal requirement. He then recorded that the remarks made to the claimant were not ‘confrontational or aggressive in nature’. That shows that the tribunal misdirected itself on the meaning of ‘accident’. An accident has been described as an unlooked for and untoward event. That is judged from the point of view of the claimant. The issue is P was this event looked for by the claimant or untoward from the claimant’s point of view? On that test, the nature of the questioning is not necessarily significant; what matters is the impact on the claimant.

4. The chairman also recorded that the tribunal doubted the accuracy of the claimant’s diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder. The tribunal was an expert one and was entitled to take account of the elements in the standard definitions of that disorder. I am not sure if this was just a passing remark or whether it was an independent ground for the tribunal’s decision. If the latter, I agree with the Secretary of State that the tribunal should have considered other mental conditions that were apparent on the evidence: stess disorder, depression and anxiety.”

The decison is now on rightsnet at http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/CI_2342_2006.pdf

Mike Robinson