Lawrence and Comcare - [2011] AATA 752

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 752
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2010/2255

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re AMANDA LAWRENCE

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member
Dr B. Hughson, Member
Date26 October 2011
PlaceCanberra

Decision
The decision under review is affirmed.

....................[sgd]..........................
Mr S. Webb, Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION - bipolar affective disorder - hypomania - depression - family history - episodic ailment – manic and depressive episodes multifactorial - ailment symptomatic in the context of employment – altered perceptions - employment not a significant contributing factor - decision affirmed.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 33(1AA)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4, 5A, 5B, 7, 14
Australian Telecommunications Commission v Tzikas (1985) 5 AAR 173
Brackenreg v Comcare [2010] FCA 724
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Comcare v Sahu-Kahn (2007) 156 FCR 536
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Purkess and Crittenden [1965] 114 CLR 164
Shorey v PT Limited (as Trustee for McNamara Property Trust) [2003] HCA 27
Watts v Rake [1960] 108 CLR 158
REASONS FOR DECISION

26 October 2011 Mr S. Webb, Member
Dr B. Hughson, Member

1.Amanda Lawrence suffers from Bipolar Disorder. In the course of her employment by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), when returning to work after a period of maternity leave, she experienced manic and depressive episodes of the Disorder. She claimed compensation. Comcare decided to reject her claim by primary determination and on reconsideration. Ms Lawrence applied for review.
2.Many relevant facts are not in dispute. These are set out in the parties’ Statements of Facts, Issues and Contentions. We note, in particular, paragraphs 5 to 13 inclusive and 18 to 21 inclusive of the Applicant’s Statement with reference to paragraphs 7 and 11 to 14 inclusive of the Respondent’s Statement.
3.During the hearing, counsel for Comcare, Ms Callan, sought to tender five volumes of summonsed documents. These were not taken in. Instead, Ms Callan tendered a List of Relevant Summonsed Documents (the List), setting out page references to all of the summonsed documents relied upon by Comcare. No objection was raised to the tender. The subject documents identified in the List were taken in and labelled Exhibit R13. After the hearing, however, a number of discrepancies and errors were identified in the List. Comcare filed amended versions of the List on 19 September 2011 and 28 September 2011, correcting errors and adding documents. The Applicant did not object to the revised tender in the terms of Comcare’s amended List – she was given an opportunity, but expressly declined to be heard on this issue. That being so, the contents of Exhibit R13 were amended to reflect the final List filed by Comcare, and a file note of Dr Priyani Ratnayake dated 4 April 2008 was taken in separately and labelled Exhibit R14.
4.At the hearing, Ms Lawrence’s counsel, Mr Anforth, raised issues concerning compensation for incapacity and medical treatment…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lawrence and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Lawrence and Comcare [2011] AATA 752
Case: [2011] AATA 752
Decision Date: 26 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lawrence and Comcare, the applicant sought compensation for a condition he described as bipolar affective disorder. The dispute was adjudicated in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant argued that his condition, which involved episodes of hypomania and depression, was connected to his employment, thereby warranting compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The legal issues the court needed to resolve involved determining whether the applicant’s condition was symptomatic in the context of his employment and whether his employment was a significant contributing factor to his condition.

The court examined the evidence and case law to determine if the applicant’s condition could be attributed to his employment. The court noted that the applicant had a family history of the disorder and that such conditions are generally multifactorial. It was established that the applicant's episodes of altered perceptions and mood changes were not solely attributable to his employment. The court referenced several precedents, including Australian Telecommunications Commission v Tzikas, Briginshaw v Briginshaw, and Comcare v Sahu-Kahn, which emphasised the need for a clear causal link between the employment and the condition. The court found that the applicant's episodes were not significantly influenced by his employment.

The court concluded that the applicant’s condition, while symptomatic in the context of his employment, was not primarily caused by it. Therefore, the decision to deny compensation was upheld. The Federal Court affirmed the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that his employment was a significant contributing factor to his condition.

The final orders affirmed the decision under review, rejecting the applicant's claim for compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		AMANDA LAWRENCE