Bannerman and Comcare

[2010] AATA 678

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL        )

)         No: A 200700010

General Administrative Division           )

Re: William Bannerman
Applicant

And: Comcare
Respondent

DIRECTION

TRIBUNAL:             Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member

DATE:                      10 September 2010

PLACE:                   Canberra

DIRECTION:

The Tribunal directs the Registrar, pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to alter the text of the decision in this application.  The reference in paragraph 82 to ’24 October 2004’ should read ’24 October 2003’.

..........................[sgd].............................

Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 678

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )         No A 200700010

)          

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		WILLIAM BANNERMAN

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member

Dr M Miller AO, Member

Date8 September 2010 

PlaceCanberra

Decision The decision under review, the Respondent’s rejection of liability for the Applicant pursuant to section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), is affirmed.

......................[sgd]....................

Professor RM Creyke, Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – section 14 liability – nature and diagnosis of Applicant’s conditions – whether ‘excessive work and travel’ in employment - whether Applicant’s condition was materially contributed to by employment – whether impairment or incapacity as a result of condition

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4(1), 7(4), 14(1)

Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR at 444

Comcare v Sahu-Khan (2007) 156 FCR 536

Re Albanese and Comcare [2004] AATA 768

Wiegand and Comcare [2002] FCA 1462

8 September 2010     REASONS FOR DECISION

Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member
Dr M Miller AO, Member

1.      Mr William Bannerman was employed between 2000 and 2008 by the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), an organisation within the Department of Defence (the Department), as a technical project officer. 

2.      On 28 September 2005 he made a workers’ compensation claim for ‘vertigo – presumed viral labyrinthitis’ which he claimed was caused by excessive work and travel.  He later extended the claim to include a ‘stress’ condition, or anxiety.

3.      His claim was rejected in a decision of 19 December 2005, a decision upheld on review on 12 December 2006.

4.      On 12 January 2007 Mr Bannerman sought review of that decision by the Tribunal.

Issues

5.      The following issues were identified:

·From what conditions did Mr Bannerman suffer?

·Whether Mr Bannerman suffered a ‘disease’ and hence an ‘injury’ within the meaning of section 4 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act)?

·If so, whether any conditions suffered by Mr Bannerman were materially contributed to by his employment with the Department?

·Whether Mr Bannerman suffered any impairment or incapacity for work as a result of his conditions?

·Whether Comcare is liable to pay compensation for the ‘injury’ under section 14 of the Act.

Background

6.      Mr Bannerman was employed as a technical project officer by the Department at the relevant times.  He joined the Land 75 Battlefield Command System Project Office in September 2000 in the Hardware…