Coburn and Comcare

[2010] AATA 412

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 412

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2009/2089

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		ANTHONY COBURN

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member Bernard J McCabe and Dr G J Maynard, Member

Date23 April 2010

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.........................[Sgd].....................

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - benefits and entitlements - liability - psychiatric condition - adjustment disorder - whether condition caused or aggravated by the applicant's employment  - material contribution - failure to obtain promotion - decision affirmed

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)

Hart v Comcare [2005] FCAFC 16

Macarthur and Comcare [2003] AATA 1139

Comcare v Sahu-Kahn [2007] FCA 15

REASONS FOR DECISION

4 June 2010   Senior Member Bernard J McCabe       

1.Mr Coburn is seeking relief under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”). He says he has developed a psychiatric condition as a result of experiences in his workplace, the Australian Taxation Office (“the ATO”). In particular, he reacted to correspondence from his managers in April 2006 raising concerns about his work performance and referring to allegations of misconduct. Mr Coburn took extensive sick leave and he has incurred medical expenses. He wants Comcare to accept liability for what occurred.

2.We say at once that we are satisfied on the medical evidence that Mr Coburn is experiencing psychiatric symptoms. Dr Apel diagnosed an adjustment disorder. The other diagnoses on file are consistent with that view. We accept that is most likely the proper diagnosis. At any rate, we are satisfied the medical evidence establishes the existence of an anxiety disorder of some kind.

3.The question is whether events in Mr Coburn’s workplace caused, contributed to or aggravated his condition.

4.Dr Apel acknowledged that workplace events may have made some contribution to what occurred, although it is unclear whether he thought it was a material contribution in the sense intended in the Act. Dr Apel’s evidence is important because it was roughly contemporaneous. We also note Ms Boulter was doubtful as to whether workplace matters made any contribution to the condition. Only Dr Slack of the expert medical witnesses was prepared to attribute the condition to workplace stressors. Mr Clark, for Comcare, noted Dr Slack’s opinion was given somewhat later in the context of compensation proceedings and relied on the applicant’s self-reporting. We have had the advantage of seeing the applicant, his managers and a number of the experts give evidence, which puts us in a good position to choose between the medical experts.

5.The respondent doubts that events in the workplace have anything to do with Mr Coburn’s current condition. Mr Clark argued the applicant’s condition is attributable to events in his personal life. We note the evidence that the applicant was separated from his wife in 2005, and that he had a difficult relationship with at least one of his children at the time. (That may have worsened over time, especially since his ex-wife has died,…