Carson and Comcare

[2003] AATA 112

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 112

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No S2000/471

General Administrative DIVISION		)
Re		PETER JOHN CARSON

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member J. A. Kiosoglous MBE

Date6 February 2003

PlaceAdelaide

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

(signed)
  J. A. KIOSOGLOUS
  (Senior Member)

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – injury of “depression or aggravation of depression” accepted as compensable – whether injury has caused permanent impairment – apportionment of impairment – whether impairment was wholly or partly pre-existing due to a paranoid personality disorder or paranoid personality traits – whether impairment suffered in workplace was wholly or partly caused by applicant’s personality – whether possible to isolate non- compensable proportion of impairment under Guide – non-economic loss

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 13, 14, 17, 18, 62

Re Brereton & Australian Postal Corporation [2001] AATA 594
Comcare v Amorebieta (1996) 22 AAR 539
Comcare v Ticsay (1992) 38 FCR 181
Federal Broom Co. Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Re Hardy & Comcare [1998] AATA 944
Re Hill & Comcare [1998] AATA 350
Re Kary and Comcare [1999] AATA 687
Re Martin and Australian Postal Corporation (1997) AAT No 12502
Martin v Australian Postal Corporation (1999) 29 AAR 420
Re McManus & Comcare [1998] AATA 837
Whittaker v Comcare (1998) 86 FCR 532
Re Williams and Australian Postal Corporation [1998] AATA 154

REASONS FOR DECISION

6 February 2003 Senior Member J. A. Kiosoglous MBE    

1.      The applicant, Dr Peter John Carson, seeks review of the decision of an Independent Review Officer given on 21 November 2000 that rejected Dr Carson’s claim for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (“the Act”). The applicant had alleged that an injury, namely stress and depression, which arose out of his employment with the Defence, Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), has led to permanent impairment and non-economic loss under the Act.

2. In addition to the material documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1-T48), the Tribunal has received from the parties ten exhibits, three from the applicant (Exhibits A1-A3), and seven from the respondent (Exhibits R1-R7). The Tribunal heard oral evidence from Dr Carson and three psychiatrists: Dr K. Le Page, called by the applicant; and Dr A. T. Davis and Professor R. D. Goldney, called by the respondent. Dr Carson was represented by Mr P. Amey, of Counsel, and Comcare was represented by Ms K. Bean, also of Counsel.

Issues

3.      It has already been established by this Tribunal (decision no. 13150, 3 August 1998, presidential member von Doussa J presiding) that Dr Carson suffered a compensable injury, “namely depression or an aggravation of depression” in the course of his employment with the DSTO.  Pursuant to that decision, the parties agreed that the questions to be answered by the Tribunal are: 

a)The degree of the permanent impairment suffered by the applicant; 

b)The percentage of that impairment which results…