Caller v State of NSW [2026] NSWCA 212
Key takeaways
When considering negligence claims arising from cumulative exposure to workplace trauma, the Court has confirmed that:
-
Proof that work caused an injury, together with an established breach of duty, does not itself establish an entitlement to work injury damages. A worker must prove that the breach caused the claimed loss.
-
A failure to implement trauma-monitoring systems will not establish liability where the evidence does not show that proper implementation would probably have changed the outcome.
-
Whether an employer responded reasonably to signs of psychiatric illness must be assessed prospectively, based on the information available at the time, rather than with hindsight following a later diagnosis
Brief facts
A former police officer served in the NSW Police Force from 2001 until early 2019. During his service, he attended numerous traumatic incidents. Following his attendance at a murder scene in December 2018, he suffered a psychiatric breakdown and did not return to work. It was undisputed that his repeated exposure to trauma during his service caused his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ‘PTSD’.
A separate workplace conflict arising from a PolAir training flight in 2010 led to an adjustment disorder and six months off work. Before returning to general duties in 2014, the former police officer underwent medical and psychological assessments that supported his fitness to return.
The former police officer pursued work injury damages against the State. The District Court found that the NSW Police Force had breached its duty by failing to implement its published systems for recording officers’ exposure to traumatic incidents. However, it dismissed the claim because the breach had not been shown to have caused his loss. The former police officer appealed.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal with costs. Causation was decisive. Even assuming the additional breaches alleged by the former police officer were established, the proposed chain from better education and record keeping to a different diagnosis, treatment or reassignment involved speculation rather than proof of a probable different outcome.
The Court rejected the contention that the PolAir episode should have been treated as a ‘red flag’ for the potential development of PTSD. That episode arose from workplace conflict rather than traumatic exposure. Although it put the NSW Police Force on notice of psychiatric illness, three separate medical opinions supported that the condition was transient, had resolved and that the former police officer was fit to return to active duties. The reasonableness of that response had to be assessed prospectively, not with hindsight. His later PTSD diagnosis did not establish that those earlier steps were inadequate.
The clinicians who assessed the former police officer before his return to general duties already knew that his years of service involved repeated exposure to trauma. The Court was not persuaded that more detailed trauma records would have altered their assessments, or that the alleged failures would have changed the outcome during his remaining years of service.
On the issue of training, the Court relied on documentary evidence of NSW Police Force education regarding psychological risks and symptoms, the former police officer’s participation in critical-incident debriefings and his own accounts to treating practitioners. An officer’s failure to recognise symptoms did not, of itself, establish inadequate training. The duty was to take reasonable steps to educate, train and monitor officers, and the Court upheld the rejection of the alleged breach on the evidence.
Implications
This decision reinforces the importance of assessing breach and causation separately. In cumulative-trauma claims, insurers should examine what a compliant system would probably have revealed, what intervention would have followed, and whether that intervention would probably have prevented or reduced the claimed loss. Contemporaneous clinical records, fitness assessments, training records and evidence of support offered should be obtained during the investigation of such claims.
The outcome does not excuse failures to implement trauma-monitoring systems: the finding of breach remained unchallenged on appeal. Rather, it highlights the need for evidence connecting the identified failure to the injury or loss, beyond establishing that the employment itself caused the injury.
.png)
