Grantham and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation)

The case of Grantham and the Australian Capital Territory (Compensation) concerned an application for review of a decision by the Respondent to refuse to give effect to a previous determination of liability under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1983 (Cth). The Applicant had previously been accepted as suffering from a compensable injury, but the Respondent sought to disturb this status quo based on a subsequent report by an independent psychiatrist, Dr Kar. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Respondent's refusal to continue paying compensation was soundly based, considering the conflicting medical opinions presented.

The central legal issue was whether the Applicant continued to suffer the effects of her injury, resulting in a need for medical treatment or incapacity, and whether the Respondent had discharged its burden of persuasion to disturb the previously accepted liability. The Tribunal had to be comfortably satisfied that disturbing the status quo was justified. The Respondent's argument, supported by Dr Kar's report, was that the Applicant had been misdiagnosed and that her current condition was likely schizophrenia, a long-standing illness not causally connected to the workplace incident. Dr Kar opined that it was unlikely a single traumatic event could cause major depression and suggested that other health professionals had been misled by the Applicant and her daughter's advocacy.

The Tribunal considered the evidence, including reports from Dr Kar and a psychiatrist commissioned by the Applicant, Dr Rajiv Siotia, as well as the oral evidence of the Applicant and her daughter. The Tribunal noted that the burden of persuasion rested with the Respondent, who sought to disturb the existing determination of liability. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not comfortably satisfied that the Respondent had discharged this burden. The decision under review was set aside.