A Melbourne hospital employee told management that his ADHD, anxiety and depression left him able to work no more than four hours a week, spread across two separate days.
Ryan Sim joined Monash Health in January 2025 as an International Medical Graduate Affairs Coordinator, a full-time position focused on assisting overseas-trained doctors with registration and visa requirements.
However, within weeks of his appointment, concerns were raised by managers about his attendance, punctuality and capacity to complete assigned work, the Fair Work Commission was told.
After Mr Sim disclosed that he had ADHD, Monash Health introduced a support plan that included flexible start times, hybrid work arrangements and mentoring to help him in the role.
Medical certificates later stated he should work only two hours a day, two days a week, and only in a “non-stressful role” — restrictions that remained in place for months.
The working relationship continued to worsen, and in May 2025 Mr Sim emailed the health service to say he would not return until “meaningful changes are implemented”.
He subsequently made complaints alleging bullying, workload problems and concerns about psychological safety, and also submitted a WorkCover claim, which was later rejected.
From June 2025, his medical certificates indicated he either had no capacity to work or could work only two hours a day, two days a week in a “non-stressful role”, citing adjustment disorder, anxiety and depression.

Monash Doctors Workforce director Mathew Born (pictured)

Melbourne man Ryan Sim was hired by Monash Health (pictured) as an International Medical Graduate Affairs Coordinator to help overseas-trained doctors secure registration and visas
The Commission heard Monash Health repeatedly asked Mr Sim to provide more detailed medical information, including what duties he could perform, what exactly constituted a ‘non-stressful role’, and when he might be able to return to full duties.
But Mr Sim consistently refused to provide anything beyond his medical certificates, citing privacy concerns.
In October 2025, Monash Health director Mathew Born wrote to Mr Sim outlining its concerns and the lengthy history of attempts to support him to return to work and obtain further information about his condition.
A medical certificate from his doctor in November 2025 stated Mr Sim could work just four hours a week in a non-stressful role due to depression, anxiety, insomnia, and impaired memory, cognitive function and judgement.
By November 2025, after more than six months away from work, Monash Health concluded Mr Sim could not perform the inherent requirements of his position and moved to terminate his employment.
Mr Sim launched an unfair dismissal case and argued the hospital failed to properly explore reasonable adjustments, alternative duties and an independent medical assessment before dismissing him.
However, Deputy President Ian Masson found the decision was justified and was critical of Mr Sim’s refusal to cooperate with requests for additional medical information.
‘It’s difficult to envisage a situation where an employee could have been less co-operative,’ he wrote in his published decision on Friday.

Deputy President Ian Masson found the decision was justified and was critical of Mr Sim’s refusal to cooperate with requests for additional medical information
‘[Mr Sim] did not help himself through his persistent and inexplicable failure to provide requested medical and capacity information that would have assisted [Monash Health] in assessing whether his capacity was likely to continue or… whether reasonable adjustments could be made to enable (Mr Sims) to return to work.’
Commissioner Masson said Monash Health, one of Victoria’s largest public health services with 25,000 employees, did not act ‘hastily’.
‘It requested and gave [Mr Sim] an opportunity to furnish further medical and capacity information on at least 10 occasions, all of which requests and opportunities were rejected,’ he said.
The commission further found that even if the dismissal had been unfair, he would not have been entitled to compensation because he had already received four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice, more than he likely would have earned before his fixed-term contract expired.