KTKY and Comcare (Compensation)

Case [2015] AATA 309


KTKY and Comcare (Compensation) [2015] AATA 309 (8 May 2015)

Division General Administrative Division

File Numbers

2013/0186

2013/4143

2013/6692

Re

KTKY

APPLICANT

And

Comcare

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal

Deputy President S D Hotop

Date 8 May 2015
Place Perth

The Tribunal decides as follows:

Application 2013/0186

The decision under review is affirmed.

Application 2013/6692

The decision under review is affirmed.

Application 2013/4143

The decision under review is set aside and, in substitution therefor, it is decided that, for the purpose of determining the amount of weekly compensation for incapacity for work payable to the applicant, pursuant to s 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“SRC Act”), in respect of the compensable injuries relating to her neck and shoulders, for the period from 4 September 2000, the amount of her “normal weekly earnings” is to be calculated under s 8 of the SRC Act on the basis that her normal work hours in the following specified periods were as follows:

·from 4 September 2000 to 30 January 2005 – 25 hours per week;

·from 31 January 2005 to 28 October 2010 – 20 hours per week;

·from 29 October 2010 – 36.75 hours per week.

Application may be made to the Tribunal in relation to the costs of the proceeding in Application 2013/4143 within 14 days of the date of this decision. In the event that no such application is made by that date, the Tribunal orders, pursuant to s 67(8) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), that the costs of that proceeding incurred by the applicant be paid by the respondent in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Tribunal’s Guide to the Workers’ Compensation Jurisdiction.

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

S D Hotop

Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employees – applicant suffered compensable physical and mental injuries – applicant claimed compensation for incapacity for work resulting from physical injuries – applicant claimed compensation for permanent impairment resulting from physical injuries – applicant claimed compensation for permanent impairment resulting from major depressive disorder – amount of incapacity compensation payable to applicant – applicant’s “normal weekly earnings” – applicant’s post-injury work hours – applicant elected to reduce work hours in certain periods – applicant ceased to be employed by Commonwealth – reviewable decision regarding incapacity payments set aside – applicant suffered permanent impairment as result of compensable injury to neck and each shoulder – degree of permanent impairment resulting from each injury less than 10% – respondent not liable to pay compensation for permanent impairment in respect of applicant’s injury to neck and each shoulder – reviewable decision affirmed – applicant suffered permanent impairment as result of major depressive disorder and chronic pain disorder – applicant’s impairment resulting from chronic pain disorder indistinguishable from impairment resulting from major depressive disorder -  degree of permanent impairment resulting from major depressive disorder 10% -  respondent liable to pay compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss in respect of major depressive disorder – reviewable decision affirmed

LEGISLATION

Safety, Rehabilitation and…

Continue reading KTKY and Comcare (Compensation)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
KTKY and Comcare (Compensation) [2015] AATA 309
Case
[2015] AATA 309
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, KTKY, sought judicial review of several decisions made by Comcare, the respondent, regarding her entitlement to compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). KTKY claimed compensation for incapacity due to physical injuries, as well as for permanent impairment resulting from both physical injuries and a major depressive disorder. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondent was liable to pay compensation for permanent impairment from the applicant's physical injuries, and whether the respondent correctly determined the applicant's "normal weekly earnings" for calculating incapacity compensation.

The court found that the applicant suffered permanent impairment as a result of her compensable injuries to the neck and shoulders, but the degree of impairment was less than 10%. Consequently, the respondent was not liable to pay compensation for permanent impairment in respect of these injuries. Regarding the major depressive disorder, the court determined that the degree of permanent impairment was 10%, and the respondent was liable to pay compensation for both permanent impairment and non-economic loss in relation to this condition. The court also concluded that the respondent's calculation of the applicant's "normal weekly earnings" for incapacity compensation purposes was incorrect. The decision concerning the amount of incapacity compensation was set aside, and it was decided that the applicant's normal work hours should be used to recalculate her "normal weekly earnings".

The court affirmed the respondent's decision not to pay compensation for permanent impairment related to the physical injuries, affirmed the respondent's decision to pay compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss related to the major depressive disorder, and set aside the decision on the amount of incapacity compensation payable to the applicant. The court substituted a new decision that specified the applicant's normal work hours for calculating her "normal weekly earnings" in different periods.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The evidence before the Tribunal comprised:·the “T Documents” (T1–T47, pp 1–234) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“AAT Act”) in Application 2013/0186;·the “T Documents” (T1–T66, pp 1–265) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the AAT Act in Application 2013/4143;·the “T Documents” (T1–T74, pp 1–269) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the AAT Act in Application 2013/6692);·Supplementary T Documents (ST1–ST13) filed by the respondent on 4 February 2015 and tendered by the respondent (Exhibit R1);·Exhibits A1–A15 tendered by the applicant;·Exhibits R2–R4 tendered by the respondent; and·the oral evidence of:- the applicant and the following witnesses called by the applicant: Dr Kevin Norcott, Dr Stephen Proud, Dr Robert Will and Ms Erin Gandy;- Dr Patrick Hanrahan and Dr Gemma Edwards-Smith (who were called by the respondent).The Factual Background The relevant background facts, as found by the Tribunal on the basis of the T Documents or as agreed between the parties, are as follows. The applicant, who was born in January 1963, commenced employment with Centrelink in or about November 1990 and her employment duties included data entry, reception work and customer service. From July 1996 she was located at the Mirrabooka Centrelink office where her duties included data entry, new claims processing, customer service, reception work and telephone calls. On 29 October 2010 she was retired on invalidity grounds and thereby ceased to be employed by the Commonwealth. On 25 March 1997 the applicant lodged with Centrelink a completed Claim for Rehabilitation and Compensation form whereby she claimed compensation under the SRC Act for an injury described as “(R) trapezius pain, exacerbation of pre-existing condition” which was sustained on Friday, 14 March 1997 and for which she first obtained medical treatment from Dr Joe Chamizo on Monday, 17 March 1997. (T4, 2013/0186) By letter dated 15 April 1997 an officer of the respondent notified the applicant that a determination had been made rejecting her claim for compensation. (T6, 2013/0186) Following a request by the applicant for a reconsideration of the abovementioned determination and the provision by her of a report from Mr Des Bushell, Physiotherapist, dated 24 April 1997, an officer of the respondent, by letter dated 20 May 1997, notified the applicant that a “reviewable decision” had been made revoking the abovementioned determination, and, instead, accepting liability for “an aggravation of [her] underlying neck and shoulder condition” with effect from 17 March 1997. (T5, T7, T8, 2013/0186) On 1 July 2009, following a relevant determination and a relevant reviewable decision of the respondent, the applicant lodged with the Tribunal an application for review in respect of “secondary conditions”, namely, “bursitis of the right and left shoulders” arising out of her accepted physical injury (Application 2009/3012).

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

KTKY (“the applicant”) has applied to the Tribunal for review of the following “reviewable decisions” of Comcare (“the respondent”) made under s 62 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“SRC Act”):·a reviewable decision, dated 27 November 2012, whereby the respondent affirmed a determination that it was not liable to pay to the applicant compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss in accordance with ss 24 and 27 of the SRC Act in respect of her compensable physical injuries involving her neck and shoulders (Application 2013/0186);·a reviewable decision, dated 26 June 2013, whereby the respondent affirmed a determination that the amount of compensation for incapacity payable to the applicant, pursuant to s 19 of the SRC Act, was to be determined on the basis that her “normal weekly earnings” were to be calculated under s 8 of the SRC Act on the basis of normal work hours of 25 hours per week from 4 September 2000 and 20 hours per week from 31 January 2005 (Application 2013/4143);·a reviewable decision, dated 16 November 2013, whereby the respondent affirmed a determination that it was liable to pay to the applicant compensation for permanent impairment on the basis of a “whole person impairment” of 10% in accordance with s 24 of the SRC Act and compensation for non-economic loss in accordance with 27 of the SRC Act in respect of her compensable mental injuries, namely, “major depressive disorder, recurrent episode [sic]” and “chronic pain syndrome [sic]” (Application 2013/6692).The Evidence The evidence before the Tribunal comprised:·the “T Documents” (T1–T47, pp 1–234) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“AAT Act”) in Application 2013/0186;·the “T Documents” (T1–T66, pp 1–265) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the AAT Act in Application 2013/4143;·the “T Documents” (T1–T74, pp 1–269) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the AAT Act in Application 2013/6692);·Supplementary T Documents (ST1–ST13) filed by the respondent on 4 February 2015 and tendered by the respondent (Exhibit R1);·Exhibits A1–A15 tendered by the applicant;·Exhibits R2–R4 tendered by the respondent; and·the oral evidence of:- the applicant and the following witnesses called by the applicant: Dr Kevin Norcott, Dr Stephen Proud, Dr Robert Will and Ms Erin Gandy;- Dr Patrick Hanrahan and Dr Gemma Edwards-Smith (who were called by the respondent).The Factual Background The relevant background facts, as found by the Tribunal on the basis of the T Documents or as agreed between the parties, are as follows. The applicant, who was born in January 1963, commenced employment with Centrelink in or about November 1990 and her employment duties included data entry, reception work and customer service. From July 1996 she was located at the Mirrabooka Centrelink office where her duties included data entry, new claims processing, customer service, reception work and telephone calls. On 29 October 2010 she was retired on invalidity grounds and thereby ceased to be employed by the Commonwealth.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Accordingly, the Tribunal, for the purpose of calculating the amount of the applicant’s “normal weekly earnings” under s 8 of the SRC Act in order to determine the amount of weekly compensation for incapacity for work payable to her, pursuant to s 19 of the SRC Act, in respect of her compensable physical injuries for the following periods, determines that:·for the period from 4 September 2000 to 30 January 2005, the applicant’s normal work hours were 25 hours per week;·for the period from 31 January 2005 to 28 October 2010, the applicant’s normal work hours were 20 hours per week;·for the period from 29 October 2010, the applicant’s normal work hours were 36.75 hours per week.Decision For the above reasons, the Tribunal decides as follows:Application 2013/0186The decision under review is affirmed.Application 2013/6692The decision under review is affirmed.Application 2013/4143The decision under review is set aside and, in substitution therefor, it is decided that, for the purpose of determining the amount of weekly compensation for incapacity for work payable to the applicant, pursuant to s 19 of the SRC Act, in respect of the compensable injuries relating to her neck and shoulders, for the period from 4 September 2000, the amount of her “normal weekly earnings” is to be calculated under s 8 of the SRC Act on the basis that her normal work hours in the following specified periods were as follows:·from 4 September 2000 to 30 January 2005 – 25 hours per week;·from 31 January 2005 to 28 October 2010 – 20 hours per week;·from 29 October 2010 – 36.75 hours per week.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.