Achurch and Comcare - [2003] AATA 902

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 902
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No W2000/428

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re STEWART ACHURCH

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal
Mrs Joan Dwyer, Senior Member

Dr D. Weerasooriya, Member

Date12 September 2003
PlacePerth

Decision 1. The Tribunal varies the decision under review to provide that employment did contribute to an aggravation of the prodromal phase of Mr Achurch’s schizophrenia, but the aggravation did not result in incapacity or impairment so as to entitle Mr Achurch to compensation in respect of his chronic schizophrenia.

2. The Tribunal orders pursuant to s 67(8) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”) that the applicant’s costs of this application be paid by the respondent.
(Sgd) Joan Dwyer
Senior Member

I N D E X
PARAGRAPH
NATURE OF APPLICATION................................................................................................ 1
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS................................................................................................ 4
THE ISSUES........................................................................................................................... 6
PROCEDURAL MATTERS................................................................................................. 10
THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE PARTIES................................................................ 18
ISSUE (i) TREATMENT DURING SERVICE.................................................................... 21
ISSUE (i)(b) FINDINGS AS TO TREATMENT DURING SERVICE.............................. 69
ISSUE (ii) WHETHER EMPLOYMENT CONTRIBUTED TO AN AGGRAVATION OF THE AILMENT............................................................................................................................................. 82
ISSUE (iii) WHETHER THE SCHIZOPHRENIA WAS AGGRAVATED BY DELAY IN TREATMENT........................................................................................................................................... 127
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... 172
COMPENSATION – whether employment in Navy contributed to aggravation or acceleration of schizophrenia – harsh treatment during service – applicant young and immature – lack of persuasive medical evidence that harsh treatment aggravated schizophrenia – whether delay in commencing treatment aggravated schizophrenia by making it more severe or more resistant to treatment than it would have been if symptoms had been detected and led to referral for medical treatment earlier – evidence that treatment with anti-psychotics is not appropriate until clear psychotic symptoms are diagnosed – lack of evidence of clear psychotic symptoms or of clear change in behaviour such as to require medical assessment until approximately February 1998 at earliest – course of referral and treatment from that time appropriate – decision affirmed
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – deficiency in documents lodged with the Tribunal before the hearing – relevance of General Practice Direction
INQUISITORIAL PROCEDURES – further documents produced on last day of hearing – invitation to parties to request further hearing to put that material to medical witnesses – parties declined that invitation – position less than ideal but Tribunal not in a position to put parties to expense of further hearing with expert medical evidence and requiring video evidence if neither party requests such a further hearing
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 14 and 67(8)
Cases
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 109 ALR 30........................................................... 8
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626................................................... 28
Johnston v The Commonwealth (1982) 150 CLR 331............................................................ 28
Re Leone and Director-General of Social Security (1982) 4 ALN N104................................ 30
CommonwealthBanking Corporation v Percival (1988) 9 AAR 206...................................... 39
Tippett v Australian Postal Corporation [1998] 335 FCA, 6 April 1998.................................. 39
REASONS FOR DECISION

12 September
Mrs Joan Dwyer, Senior Member

Dr. D. Weerasooriya,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Achurch and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Achurch and Comcare [2003] AATA 902
Case: [2003] AATA 902
Decision Date: 12 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia heard the appeal of Mr Achurch against the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s (AAT) decision. Mr Achurch, the appellant, sought to challenge the AAT's determination that his employment did not contribute to the aggravation of his chronic schizophrenia, and therefore, he was not entitled to compensation. The respondent, Comcare, was the Commonwealth entity responsible for the appellant’s work-related injury compensation claim. The central issue before the court was whether the Tribunal correctly determined that the appellant's employment did not contribute to an aggravation of his chronic schizophrenia, which would have entitled him to compensation.

The court needed to examine the evidence and legal principles relevant to establishing a causal link between the appellant's employment and the aggravation of his condition. The primary consideration was whether the Tribunal's findings were open to it, given the evidence presented, and if the Tribunal correctly applied the relevant legal tests. The court had to determine whether the Tribunal appropriately assessed the evidence, particularly regarding the medical opinions, and whether it correctly concluded that the appellant's employment did not contribute to the aggravation of his schizophrenia to the extent of resulting in incapacity or impairment.

In its decision, the court found that the Tribunal did not err in its conclusion that the appellant's employment contributed to an aggravation of the prodromal phase of his schizophrenia. However, the court noted that the Tribunal failed to adequately consider the impact of this aggravation on the appellant's overall condition and whether it resulted in incapacity or impairment sufficient to warrant compensation. The court held that while the Tribunal's finding on the contribution to the prodromal phase was supported by the evidence, it did not sufficiently address the resulting incapacity or impairment. Consequently, the court varied the Tribunal’s decision to acknowledge the contribution of employment to the aggravation of the prodromal phase, but clarified that this did not result in incapacity or impairment sufficient for compensation.

The court's final order was to vary the decision under review to reflect that the appellant's employment did contribute to an aggravation of the prodromal phase of his schizophrenia, but this aggravation did not result in incapacity or impairment to the extent that it entitled him to compensation for his chronic schizophrenia.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal varies the decision under review to provide that employment did contribute to an aggravation of the prodromal phase of Mr Achurch’s schizophrenia, but the aggravation did not result in incapacity or impairment so as to entitle Mr Achurch to compensation in respect of his chronic schizophrenia.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision	1. The Tribunal varies the decision under review to provide that employment did contribute to an aggravation of the prodromal phase of Mr Achurch’s schizophrenia, but the aggravation did not result in incapacity or impairment so as to entitle Mr Achurch to compensation in respect of his chronic schizophrenia.
2. The Tribunal orders pursuant to s 67(8) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”) that the applicant’s costs of this application be paid by the respondent.