Eames and Comcare

[2006] AATA 1052

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 1052

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No   A2005/149

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		REBECCA EAMES

Applicant

And   COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal   J.W. Constance, Senior Member

Date  7 December 2006

Place  Canberra

Decision

1)    The decision of Comcare made 8 April 2005 affirming the decision to deny liability for Ms Eames’ claim for compensation is set aside and in substitution it is decided that:

(a)   Comcare is liable to pay compensation to Ms Eames in accordance with the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in respect of the injury of an anxiety state or alternatively, the injury of the aggravation of an anxiety state, suffered by her on 14 November 2004;

(b)   from April 2005 until the date of this decision Ms Eames did not suffer from the effects of either or both of the above-mentioned injuries.

2)    Each party has liberty to apply concerning the costs of this application within 21 days of the date of this decision, provided that should no such application be made, Comcare shall pay the costs of these proceedings incurred by Ms Eames.

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

J.W. Constance, Senior Member  

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – Anxiety disorder – Whether condition outside normal range of functioning and behaviour – Whether reasonable disciplinary action – Whether disciplinary process accorded procedural fairness.   

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

Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439

Commission for the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation of Commonwealth Employees v Chenhall (1992) 37 FCR 75

Re Inglis and Comcare (AAT 12155, 27 August 1997)

REASONS FOR DECISION

7 December 2006 J.W. Constance, Senior Member

INTRODUCTION

1.      During 2004 an unfortunate situation developed in Ms Eames’ workplace which ultimately brought her to this Tribunal.  Ms Eames’ claim for compensation in respect of an injury she claims to have suffered as a result of that situation has been rejected by Comcare.  For the reasons which follow I have decided that Comcare's decision should be set aside and in substitution it be decided that Comcare is liable to pay compensation in respect of the injury.

EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACT

2.      Unless otherwise stated I make the following findings of fact based on the evidence of Ms Eames. I am satisfied of these facts found on the balance of probabilities.

3.      In 2004 Ms Eames was employed as a Seminar Coordinator in the Research Section of the Department of the Senate and had been employed in that position for the previous six years. Until 2004 she regarded her workplace as a happy and cheerful one in which she enjoyed working.  In March 2004 Ms Loes Slattery joined the Research Section.  Ms Slattery held a position senior to that held by Ms Eames.

4.      Initially, Ms Eames and Ms Slattery had limited contact, but as time went on there were more occasions on which they were required to work together.  For reasons which are not relevant to the decision in this matter the relationship between Ms…