Hart and Comcare

[2004] AATA 128

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 128

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No A2001/83

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		OLGA HART

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr G A Mowbray

Date10 February 2004

PlaceCanberra

Decision	The reviewable decision of 4 January 2001 is set aside and in substitution the Tribunal determines that Comcare is liable to pay compensation to Ms Hart pursuant to section 14(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 for an adjustment disorder the onset of which occurred around July-August 2000.
The Tribunal orders Comcare to pay Ms Hart's costs as agreed or taxed, other than those for the lost hearing days of 25 to 27 March 2002.

................................…………..

G A Mowbray

Member

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – liability – nature and conditions of work – adjustment disorder – material contribution from employment – failure to obtain promotion – costs  – decision set aside

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – s 37 documents

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 14

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 37

Comcare v Mooi (1996) 137 ALR 690

Trewin v Comcare (1998) 156 ALR 615

Comcare v Ross [1996] FCA 680

Re Gelbak and Comcare [1995] AATA 10169

Re Fitzgerald and Comcare [1995] AATA 10514

Re Parker and Comcare [1996] AATA 11298

Re Myers and Comcare [1997] AATA 11756

Rodriguez v Telstra Corporation Limited [1999] FCA 1400

Wiegand v Comcare (2002) 72 ALD 795

REASONS FOR DECISION

10 February 2004 Mr G A Mowbray         

Summary

1.        Ms Olga Hart, the Applicant in this matter, had been employed by the Department of Defence (the Department) for some years when she made a claim for rehabilitation and compensation on 18 August 2000.  She said that she suffered from depression and anxiety and an adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood caused by events associated with her application for three positions.

2.        Although the Respondent, Comcare, accepted that she suffered from an adjustment disorder the claim was rejected on 30 September 2000.  Comcare was not satisfied that Ms Hart's employment materially contributed to her condition.  Furthermore the exclusionary provision which provides that compensation is not payable for injuries which result from failure to obtain a promotion applied to Ms Hart's case.  This decision was upheld on review on 4 January 2001.

3.        The initial claim for compensation centred on events associated with Ms Hart's lack of success with a number of job applications but over time its ambit has broadened.  The case presented to the Tribunal was a nature and conditions claim based on the cumulative effect of a large number of incidents in the course of Ms Hart's employment with the Department.  I have not accepted many of Ms Hart's claims concerning these incidents, nor that they contributed to her accepted adjustment disorder. 

4.        However I am satisfied that a number of incidents associated with the application, interview and promotion process contributed materially to Ms Hart's condition. I am also satisfied that these incidents do not fall…