Saturday, 31 October 2015

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, How Do You Measure Up?

We found this assessment in a book called 'Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, The Hidden Epidemic' written in 1990(1).

How do you measure up?


Death of a spouse 100
Divorce 73
Marital spearation 65
Jail term 63
Death of a close family member 63
Personal injury or illness 53
Marriage 50
Fired at work 47
Marital reconciliation 45
Retirement 45
Change in health of family member 44
Pregnancy 40
Sex difficulties 39
Gain of new family member 39
Business adjustment 39
Change in financial state 38
Death of close friend 37
Change to a different line of work 36
Change in number of arguments with spouse 35
Mortgage over one years net salary 31
Forclosure of mortgage or loan 30
Change in responsibilities at work 29
Son or daughter leaving home 29
Trouble with in-laws 29
Outstanding personal achievement 28
Spouse begins or stops work 26
Begin or end school 26
Change in living conditions 25
Revision of personal habits 24
Trouble with the boss 23
Change in work hours or conditions 20
Change in residence 20
Change in schools 20
Change in recreation 19
Change in church activities 19
Change in social activities 18
Mortgage or loan less than one year's net salary 17
Change in sleeping habits 16
Change in number of family get togethers 15
Change in eating habits 15
Vacation 13
Christmas 13
Minor violations of the law 11


According to the author, if your total is over 300, then you have 80 percent probability of a serious change in your health within the next year.

By no means are we suggesting this assessment is any more than a 'food for thought' excercise and there are more modern assessment methods that may be more reliable, but the pupose of the post is to start a conversation about CFS and should you be experiencing significant stressors in your private or professional life, you should seek medical advice.

Where the major stressors in your life concern workplace related matters, email and let's see if we can help you to reduce your stress by addressing root cause.

(1) Bernie S. Seigel, M.D., Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Harper & Row Publishers Inc. 1990 at 87-88

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 149

Court Provided Information: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Enterprise agreement – Personal leave – Whether provision of agreement gives an entitlement to sick leave or makes the right to be absent a matter for the discretion of the employer – Relevance of predecessor agreements between same parties.

LEGISLATION CITED: Constitution (Cth) s 109; Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 16, 43, 44, 50, 55, 97, 99, 127, 340, 346, 352; Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 30.01; Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Qld) s 10; Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 3, 89A, 170LT, 170LY, 170LZ, 170X, 170XA, 171, 172, 173, 244, 246, 340; Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Cth)

Woolworths Ltd v Perrins [2015] QCA 207

Court Provided Information: TORTS – Negligence – Essentials of action for negligence – Duty of care – Where nervous or shock or mental disorder – Where the respondent was employed by the appellant – Where the respondent applied to take part in a management training programme during his employment – Where the respondent was accepted into the programme then removed before the programme commenced – Where the respondent made a second application for the management training programme the following year but was again removed before it commenced – Where the respondent was diagnosed with "adjustment disorder with depressed mood", "dissociative disorder", and "substance abuse disorder" following his removal from the programme the second time – Where the respondent had a history of drug abuse and depression – Where the respondent had not indicated any factors which would negatively impact his performance when applying for employment – Where the respondent gave evidence at trial that he had notified the appellant of his vulnerability to psychiatric injury – Whether the fundamental findings of fact made by the trial judge should stand – Whether the appellant was negligent – Whether the appellant's duty of care as an employer extended to avoiding psychiatric injury liable to be caused by insistence on meeting the criteria for promotion – Whether appellant's alleged breach of duty caused the respondent's psychiatric injury – Whether the respondent's psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable.

Welcome to the NEW Workers First Blog

On this exciting new feature of our website, members, clients and supporters can keep up to date with what is happening in the world of Workers First.

You can share you comments and ideas and get access to advice on workplace matters even faster.

Please follow our

Contact us


Email *

Message *