Jones and Comcare

[2007] AATA 1653

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1653

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No A2006/25

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		ANISSA JONES

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member
Dr M. Miller AO, Member

Date9 August 2007

PlaceCanberra

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

.................signed.............................

Mr S. Webb, Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION - pre-existing psychological condition manifest in personal conflict and negative perceptions concerning incidents in the workplace - failure to obtain a transfer materially contributed to aggravate psychological condition - aggravation not an injury - decision affirmed

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 5, 14

Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439

Wiegand v Comcare [2002] FCA 1464

Comcare v Sahu- Kahn  [2007] FCA 15

Comcare v Canute [2005] FCAFC 262

Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth (1985) 9 FCR 36

Hart v Comcare [2005] FCAFC 16

Trewin v Comcare (1998) 84 FCR 171

REASONS FOR DECISION

9 August 2007 Mr S. Webb, Member
Dr M. Miller AO, Member   

1.      Anissa Jones is a teacher.  She complained of harassment and victimisation during a temporary placement in a school in 2005.  Before taking up the placement she was being treated with anti-depressant medication.  She asserted that her psychological condition was aggravated by certain incidents during her employment at the school.  She lodged a claim for compensation.  The claim was rejected by primary determination and on reconsideration by Comcare.  Ms Jones applied for review of the decision to reject her claim for compensation.

2.      Three issues were agitated in these proceedings.

(a)Did Ms Jones suffer from a mental ailment during the relevant period of employment?

(b)If so, was the ailment a disease that was contributed to in a material degree by the employment?

(c)If so, was the disease an injury in relation to which she is entitled to compensation?

3.      At the outset we are concerned to record that we found Ms Jones’ evidence to be unreliable.  We note that Dr Knox reported that she suffered from ‘Dissociative Disorder’.[1] Ms Jones experienced difficulty recalling some of the incidents that occurred in 2005.  That may go some way to explaining minor discrepancies in her evidence, in relation to a dinner for “Philippe,” or a school trivia night, for example.  However, as it appears to us Ms Jones was articulate and forthcoming in relation to evidence that she considered to be relevant to her case and, in her eagerness to tell her story and to paint a favourable picture, she gave contradictory evidence.  We note that Ms Jones purported to clearly recall incidents involving a test paper that was allegedly not provided to her on time, and a folder that could not be found, and various alleged communications that occurred. In her evidence, she was able to elucidate relevant details, but she was less able to recall the details of other events and incidents during the same period, involving conflict with her husband and her own behaviour and medical treatment.  We do not rule…