Johnston and Australian Postal Corporation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1687

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q 200600564

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		MALCOLM JOHNSTON

Applicant

And AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr KS Levy RFD, Senior Member

Date23 August 2007

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..................[Sgd]............................

SENIOR MEMBER  

Banks v Comcare [1996] FCA 382
Scutts and Department of Defence [1998] AATA 13085
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Dowde and Comcare [1995] AATA 10159

REASONS FOR DECISION

23 August 2007	Dr KS Levy, RFD, Senior Member
Introduction

1.      This is an application by Malcolm Johnston. He is appealing a decision of the respondent to reject his claim for compensation for medical and psychiatric conditions. Mr Johnston claims his conditions are attributable to his former employment with the Australian Postal Corporation.

2.      The applicant worked for the respondent from 9 April 1975 until he accepted a voluntary early retirement package in December 1992. The applicant had a history of various related conditions prior to and during his employment, and the respondent was well aware of these conditions and the sensitivity of the applicant to seeking compensation for his illnesses. Following a number of claims for compensation during his period of employment, the latest application was abandoned prior to him accepting a voluntary early retirement.

3.      Some 13 years after leaving the employ of the respondent, the applicant lodged a further claim for compensation on 5 July 2005. The respondent denied any liability in relation to those claims and formally rejected the applicant’s claims on 10 March 2006. Following the applicant’s request for review of that decision on 15 May 2006, a delegate of the respondent reconsidered it but affirmed the original determination on 17 July 2006. Mr Johnston now appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) by application dated 14 August 2006.

Background

4.      The respondent’s rejection of the applicant’s compensation refers to a claim dated 22 August 2005 and a further but previous claim in 1992, but this latter claim was withdrawn prior to the applicant accepting a redundancy payment. The decision to reject the applicant’s claims is based on what the decision maker reconsidering the decision refers to as a long history of difficult behaviours by the applicant in the workplace. It is said that the respondent would be prejudiced by an inability to get independent medical evidence at this late stage, of what the applicant’s condition was like in 1992 prior to his accepting a redundancy payment. It also determined that the primary reason for the applicant’s problems relates to a long standing personality disorder. Reference to a conflict between his treating psychiatrist and the medical services officer employed by the respondent in 1992 is considered to be a factor which might also prevent the respondent from objectively and fairly defending the claim so long after the applicant ceased work.

5.Mr Johnston now claims compensation for a number of conditions:

·     Generalised anxiety disorder;

·     Chronic post…