Churn and Australian Postal Corporation

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 701

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No      N2005/25,

GENERAL       APPEALS          DIVISION		)  N2005/918 and N2005/1220
Re		LAURIE CHURN

Applicant

And AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION 

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr J Campbell, Member

Date16 August 2006

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision in the three matters under review are affirmed.

..............................................

Dr J Campbell
  Member

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – work place disputation – claim for emotional stress – claim for stress/anxiety disorder – personality disorder – reasonable disciplinary action – claim for physiotherapy treatments to right elbow – found applicant did not suffer emotional stress/anxiety- applicant not entitled to physiotherapy treatment.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4, 14 and 16

Comcare v Hart [2003] FCA 1067

Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439

REASONS FOR DECISION

16 August 2006    Dr J Campbell, Member

1.      Mr Churn, born in 1952 commenced employment with Australia Post in 1983 as a Christmas casual at Hornsby.  Following work as a relief post office worker Mr Churn transferred to mail processing on night shift work in 1986 at the St Leonards mail facility to accommodate his university studies.  In 1990/91 Mr Churn transferred to the Eastern Suburbs mail facility at Alexandria, where he worked part time for several years prior to returning to full time work in 2000.  Mr Churn was transferred back to St Leonards mail facility in late August 2002, where he continued to work until his resignation on 23 April 2004.

2.      Mr Churn is seeking review of three matters namely:

·The issue of whether he suffers from an emotional stress condition as a result of his employment with Australia Post (N2005/25).

·The issue of whether Mr Churn suffers from an anxiety disorder as a result of his employment with Australia Post (N2005/918).

·The issue of whether Mr Churn is entitled to payment for physiotherapy treatments to his right shoulder as a consequence of increased symptomatology following bush regeneration activities in 2005 (N2005/1220).

issues

3.      The issues to be considered in these matters are:

·     Did Mr Churn suffer an emotional stress/anxiety disorder as a consequence of his employment with Australia Post, with particular reference to the incident of 29 July 2003?

·     If so, was such a condition the result of or contributed to by reasonable disciplinary action?

·     Did Mr Churn suffer an anxiety disorder as a consequence of his employment with Australia Post, with particular reference to events leading up to and including the meeting with Mr Corner on 23 April 2002 and subsequent happenings?

·     If so was such a condition the result of or contributed to by reasonable disciplinary action?

·     Was Mr Churn entitled to payments for physiotherapy treatment for his right elbow as a consequence of increasing pain arising from his bush regeneration activities in 2005 post his retirement on 23 April 2004?

decision

4.      For the reasons detailed later in this decision, I find that:

(a)Mr Churn did not suffer a period of emotional stress/anxiety…