Case in Review: Ofori v Australian Capital Territory Compensation – A review of Safety Compliance at Australia Workplaces

Safety Compliance| A Workplace Assault, a Denied Claim, and a Shocking Precedent on Employer Duty

In what the court described as a “troubling and inexcusable disinterest” in worker welfare, a nurse’s psychological injury claim reveals the critical gaps in safety compliance practices that can expose employers to significant legal liability.

The Incident: Assault in the Hospital Corridor

On 5 July 2023, Carol Ofori, a registered nurse at The Canberra Hospital, was performing routine hand hygiene duties when she was struck by a wheeled walker wielded by the mother of a patient. What began as a tense verbal exchange over patient care escalated into an alleged assault; witnessed by another patient who later provided a statement to police.

Ofori reported the incident to her manager on the same day, complaining of pain to her left hip. She finished her shift, took rostered days off, and returned to work on 10 July 2023. But what happened next would expose systemic failures in workplace safety compliance that would ultimately be contested in an administrative tribunal.

The Unravelling: Delays, Denials, and Deterioration

Here’s where safety compliance failed critically. Despite Ofori’s incident report, no formal investigation commenced immediately. The employer’s Riskman Incident Report; the hospital’s own required safety documentation; was not finalised until 13 July, four days after the incident. The employer later concluded it was merely an “accident” in a confined space, suggesting improved traffic management and e-learning modules.

Ofori felt unheard. Her colleagues remained unaware of what had happened. When she sought compensation for her physical injuries (left hip and thigh pain, right knee stiffness), the insurer denied the claim on 4 August 2023, arguing insufficient nexus to the incident.

The psychological toll was immediate. Ofori described feeling that the employer and insurer were calling her a liar. Safety compliance protocols had failed to protect her; not just physically, but psychologically. Her mental health deteriorated rapidly as she wrestled with the denied claim, feeling abandoned by her employer and questioning her own credibility.

The Tribunal’s Shocking Findings on Employer Conduct

The tribunal found that Ofori suffered a physical injury (soft tissue to left hip and thigh) as a result of the incident; a decision that vindicated her account. But the psychological claim was rejected because the tribunal found it was driven by a pre-existing depressive condition, not the incident itself.

Yet even more telling: the tribunal slammed the employer’s approach to safety compliance. General Member F Eylward stated there was a “troubling and inexcusable disinterest” on the part of the employer regarding the worker’s welfare and return-to-work prospects.

This language signals a critical shift in how courts and tribunals assess employer obligation. It’s not enough to have safety compliance paperwork; employers must demonstrate active engagement with injured workers throughout the claims process.

What This Means for Safety Compliance in Your Organisation

This case exposes three catastrophic failures in workplace safety compliance:

1. Incident Investigation Delays
The four-day delay in formalizing the Riskman report; despite Ofori’s contemporaneous reporting; violated procedural fairness. Best practice safety compliance requires immediate documentation and investigation initiation.

2. Worker Abandonment
Once an injury claim is filed, employers have a duty to remain engaged. Letting the insurer’s decision silence employer communication is not compliance; it’s negligence. The tribunal was clear: an employer cannot show “disinterest” in a worker’s recovery and expect to avoid criticism.

3. Conflicting Incident Conclusions
The employer concluded the incident was accidental, yet police found insufficient evidence to substantiate any charges. This ambiguity creates psychological harm; workers feel unprotected when incidents aren’t taken seriously. Strong safety compliance systems must communicate clearly about incident findings to affected workers.

The Compensation Outcome

The tribunal set aside the physical injury denial and ordered compensation. While the psychological claim was rejected based on the expert evidence of pre-existing depression, the manner in which the employer and insurer handled the claim was documented as inadequate.

For similar cases, the failure in safety compliance procedures could expose organisations to far greater liability.

---

Avoiding Ofori’s Precedent: Safety Compliance Checklist

Implement these non-negotiable safety compliance practices to avoid a similar tribunal decision:

• Immediate reporting: Finalise incident reports within 24 hours, not days.
• Transparent investigation: Communicate investigation findings to the affected worker, not just to management.
• Ongoing worker contact: Maintain regular communication throughout any claims process, even when denying liability.
• Return-to-work engagement: Actively manage the return-to-work process; don’t delegate solely to the insurer.
• Fair process: Provide workers with reasons for decisions and an opportunity to respond.

---

Learning from real court cases is essential for building robust safety compliance frameworks.

At HSE Direct, we help organisations implement incident management, claims handling, and return-to-work systems that protect workers and protect your organisation from legal exposure.

Need to audit your current safety compliance practices?

• Download our free incident management template at HSE Direct Free Resources
• Follow us on Instagram @hse_direct for weekly case law insights and safety compliance tips.

For guidance on workers’ compensation law and tribunal processes, visit SafeWork ACT and icare for Commonwealth and NSW-specific frameworks.

---

Case Citation: Ofori and Australian Capital Territory Compensation ARTA 2062 (10 October 2025)