The driver of over 45 years was attempting to turn right from Charles Street into Elizabeth Street at 11.05am on August 20 when he struck the 70-year-old male pedestrian crossing Elizabeth Street at the traffic lights, emerging from a shaded area.

The driver immediately attended to the pedestrian, who had suffered minor injuries requiring one night in the Launceston General Hospital.

Metro started a safety investigation and suspended the driver from normal duties. The investigation predominantly relied upon analysis of CCTV from a bus facing the intersection from the north on Charles Street.

Metro claimed that the driver had line of sight to the pedestrian for more than 12 seconds, was not wearing a seat belt, had crept forward prior to the green light to move before the bus facing opposite, and had waved to this bus as he turned.

On September 1 he was informed of a disciplinary investigation, and on September 2 he was given a letter from Metro stating his employer was very concerned and it could result in the termination of his employment.

The driver responded that - based on CCTV from his bus - "due to shading and glare circumstances" he only saw the pedestrian 1.5-two seconds before impact, he had moved forward before the green light to only cross the white line by about 60 centimetres and was monitoring for pedestrians leaving Princes Square.

"CCTV shows bright sunlight shining through the offside upper windscreen curve and the particularly dark shadowing of the Charles and Elizabeth Street shop fronts and footpath areas," he wrote in response.

The driver claimed he was not wearing a seat belt due to the bus previously going into "limp mode" several times, and in anticipation for a bus changeover.

Documentation from his manager stated he "had not been involved in any major safety incidents" during his 45 years of employment, and that he "seemed to be shaken up by the incident" in the immediate aftermath. But the manager also claimed there was no suggestion the driver "was incapacitated for work or suffering from a psychological condition".

On September 16, a consultation report from a clinical psychologist was provided to Metro stating the driver "presented with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in association with a workplace accident", including poor sleep, anxiety and distress. A copy of an invoice for workers compensation was provided.

In documents with the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Tribunal, Metro disputed its liability to pay compensation, and claimed the driver's mental health condition was a result of the investigation and other actions post-collision, rather than the collision itself. This was disputed by the driver.

The tribunal will assess the submissions. Metro can avoid paying compensation if a "reasonably arguable case exists" not to do so.

Metro was contacted for comment.