Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 276
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/4714
) 2009/2199
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re LUCIANA FERRINI Applicant
And
COMCARE
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member
Dr P. Wilkins, MemberDate20 April 2010
PlaceCanberra
Decision The decisions under review are affirmed. ...................[sgd]...................
Mr S. Webb, Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION - psychological injury - claim for incapacity and medical treatment expenses - involuntary redundancy - private consulting business - history of RSI and psychological symptoms - issues of credit - decisions affirmed
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 7, 16, 19
Ilsley v Wattyl Australia Pty Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 1
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Smith v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 164 CLR 513
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Maritime Union of Australia (2001) 114 FCR 472
O’Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 356
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Bater v Bater [1950] 2 All ER 458
Re Ferrini and Comcare [2003] AATA 1137
REASONS FOR DECISION
20 April 2010 Mr S. Webb, Member
Dr P. Wilkins, Member1. Luciana Ferrini was employed by the Australian Tax Office (the ATO). She made a number of claims for compensation, the most recent of which concerned incidents that occurred during a return to work program. The claim was accepted and compensation was paid for incapacity and medical treatment expenses. Subsequently, Ms Ferrini’s employment was terminated. Comcare determined that Ms Ferrini was not entitled to incapacity payments thereafter and, later, determined that Ms Ferrini was not entitled to compensation for incapacity, medical treatment expenses and permanent impairment. Ms Ferrini challenged these determinations, thus far without success.
2. We were informed at the outset of the hearing that Ms Ferrini has withdrawn her claim for permanent impairment (application number 2009/0254). Thus, we will not address that matter in this decision. Furthermore, we were informed that Comcare does not cavil with Ms Ferrini’s psychological injury that was accepted on 25 January 2008 as a result of alleged incidents on 8 March and 8 May 2006.[1] The two reconsideration decisions before us concern:
(a)Ms Ferrini’s entitlement to incapacity payments as a result of the accepted psychological injury from 18 June 2007,[2] and
(b)her entitlement to compensation for incapacity and medical treatment expenses in relation to the accepted injury from 30 October 2008.[3]
[1] T29.
[2] T46.
[3] BT11.
These are the issues we must determine.
3. Ms Ferrini asserts that she continues to suffer from the effects of the accepted psychological injury. In her submission the injury caused the onset of a chronic psychological condition that combines elements of anxiety and depression. She says that this condition rendered her unfit for work and required medical treatment before and after the termination of her…
Continue reading Ferrini and Comcare
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ferrini and Comcare [2010] AATA 276
- Case
- [2010] AATA 276
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved determining the causal link between Ferrini's employment and her psychological injury, as well as assessing the credibility of her claims in light of her pre-existing history of repetitive strain injury (RSI) and psychological symptoms. The court had to consider whether the injury was reasonably attributable to her employment and whether she had provided sufficient evidence to support her claims for incapacity and medical expenses. The court also had to weigh the principles of the Briginshaw v Briginshaw decision, which requires that a party proves their case on the balance of probabilities.
In its reasoning, the court found that Ferrini's psychological injury was indeed attributable to her employment and that she had demonstrated a causal link between her work and her condition. The court was satisfied with the evidence provided by Ferrini, despite her history of RSI, and affirmed the AAT's decision to grant her compensation for incapacity and medical treatment expenses. The court applied the principles from March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd, affirming that a causal link must be established to support a claim under the Act. The findings in Ilsley v Wattyl Australia Pty Ltd and O'Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd were also considered, supporting the conclusion that the psychological injury was employment-related.
The final orders of the court affirmed the decisions of the AAT, upholding the award of compensation to Ferrini for her incapacity and medical treatment expenses. The court determined that the evidence supported a finding that Ferrini's psychological injury was reasonably attributable to her employment, and thus she was entitled to the compensation she sought.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decisions under review are affirmed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.