Hutchison and Comcare

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 61

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N200601229

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		LEANNE HUTCHISON

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr I Alexander, Member

Date23 January 2008

PlaceNewcastle

Decision

1)    The reviewable decision of the Respondent, dated 1 September 2006 determining that Ms Hutchison’s “depressive disorder” was not work related and was not contributed to in a material degree by her employment, is set aside.

2) In substitution for the decision set aside, it is decided that between May 2005 and November 2005 Ms Hutchison suffered an injury as defined in section 4 of the Act in that she suffered an ailment that was contributed to in a material degree by her employment.

3) Ms Hutchison is entitled to compensation pursuant to section 14 of the Act.

4) The decision on the matter of costs has been reserved. The parties have 14 days from the date of this decision to advise the Tribunal if this wish to put further argument. If they do not, the Tribunal will make an order pursuant to section 67(8) of the Act that the Respondent pay Ms Hutchison’s costs.

.................[sgd]....................

Dr I Alexander, Member

ISSUES

(i) Did Ms Hutchison suffer from an injury that had resulted in incapacity for work or impairment for which Comcare may have been liable to pay compensation pursuant to section 14 of the Act?

7.Section 4 of the Act determines that an injury can mean a disease suffered by an employee.

8.It is common ground that the nature of the psychological condition claimed by Ms Hutchison was best described as a disease. Therefore, the relevant question is, did Ms Hutchison suffer from a disease at the time of her claim?

9.At the hearing both parties agreed that the weight of medical evidence pointed to a conclusion that at the time of the claim Ms Hutchison did suffer from a condition that could be described as a psychiatric disease.

10.In the course of two years, from November 2005 to October 2007, no less than eight psychiatrists and one psychologist had seen Ms Hutchison. This plethora of consultations yielded three different psychiatric diagnoses.

11.Although there was no agreement as to the specific diagnosis of Ms Hutchison’s condition, there can be no dispute that at the time of her claim Ms Hutchison did suffer from a psychiatric disease and therefore that she did suffer from an injury that may have been compensable under the Act.

12.I note that there has been no agreement as to the time of onset of the psychiatric disease.

(ii) What was the time of onset of the psychiatric disease?

13.In order to address this issue, it is necessary to consider the chronology of events and the medical evidence.

14.In about May 2003 Ms Hutchison suffered from a range of symptoms and consulted her GP, Dr Kumar, who diagnosed depression and prescribed antidepressant medication.

15.It is relevant that in February 2003 her husband, Mr Haberl, who…