Stress At Work: A Case Of Retrospective Recollection?

Grimes v City of Sunderland College [2012] was an unusual stress at work case in the County Court, in which DWF acted for the successful Defendant College. The claim focussed upon the Claimant's return to work after two previous breakdowns and her subsequent third breakdown. However, when investigated, it transpired that the Claimant had made an incomplete recovery from the second period of absence and it was held that she had failed to show fault on the part of her employers. The judgment provides a useful restatement of the law and also demonstrates that claimants face considerable difficulties in winning these cases if insurers adopt a robust position. David Drewe draws out the key findings and also highlights a useful practice point for claims handlers.

Facts

The 61 year old Claimant had trained as a teacher as a mature student and qualified in 1990. Throughout her teaching career she worked for the Defendant sixth form college which catered for a mixture of academic and vocational students, a number of whom came from deprived areas of Sunderland and could be "challenging".

First absence - in February 2000 she was diagnosed as suffering from a major depressive episode ("MDE") which resulted in an absence of 6 months, allegedly due to a combination of behaviour of students, unsupportive management and an impossible timetable. She returned to work in August 2000 in a non-teaching role in a work based learning unit.

Second absence - she suffered a further MDE in February 2005 which gave rise to another 6 month absence which she blamed on "unethical practices" within the college and lack of managerial support. At the beginning of her absence the College offered to provide her with a return to work in a new role at a new site, offering adult learning support ("ALS"), it being anticipated that she would be able to return to work shortly. It became apparent that this was not in fact going to happen and plans were made for a return to work at the start of the following academic year in September 2005.

There was a dispute about the scope of duties she was to undertake on returning to work, which was eventually to become a central issue between the parties. She asserted that she was to teach ALS on a specialist one to one basis whilst the College argued that the agreement was to work as a lecturer with some ALS duties.

Following a review by the College's Occupational Health provider in August 2005 the Claimant returned before the start of the...