In this complex episode of P.I. Case Note, Michelle Wright dissects the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission’s decision in Guandalini v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 171, which demonstrates the challenging requirements for successful workplace psychiatric injury claims. The case involved a high school mathematics teacher whose adjustment disorder claim was rejected after the Commission found his psychological injury stemmed from his involvement in his partner’s workplace bullying dispute rather than from his own employment circumstances.
The Commission’s analysis under section 32 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) provides crucial guidance on establishing causation in workplace psychiatric injury claims. Despite Mr. Guandalini nominating specific workplace stressors—including encountering an alleged bully in breach of return-to-work agreements and facing coordinated complaints from colleagues—the Commission determined these events were consequences of his romantic relationship rather than his employment. This decision reinforces that employment must be the “real effective cause” of psychiatric injury, not merely the setting where personal conflicts play out. The case also resulted in a significant costs order exceeding $8,000 against the unsuccessful appellant, highlighting the risks of pursuing workplace psychiatric injury claims without clear employment causation.
Listen for Michelle Wright’s detailed analysis of this psychiatric injury decision and its implications for workplace psychiatric injury claims. If you’re suffering from psychological injuries related to workplace stress, bullying, or conflicts, establishing the correct causation is crucial to your claim’s success. Contact accident legal for a free consultation—our experienced team specialises in workplace psychiatric injury claims and can help determine whether your circumstances meet the strict legal requirements for compensation.
