Layton and Comcare

[2007] AATA 1926

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1926

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No A2006/177

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		GRAZYNA (CHRIS) LAYTON

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member

Date5 November 2007

PlaceCanberra

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

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

Mr S. Webb, Member

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION - psychological injury accepted – determination ceasing compensation benefits - multifactorial causation - administrative processes perceived to be unfair - harassment - failure to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit - injury excluded - decision affirmed

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss4, 14, 16, 19

Canute v Comcare [2006] HCA 47

Hart v Comcare [2005] FCAFC 16

Wiegand v Comcare [2006] FCA 1620

Telstra Corporation Limited v Hannaford [2006] FCAFC 87

Golds v Comcare [1997] FCA 1481

Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FCR 316

Comcare v Sahu Kahn [2007] FCA 15

Ilsley v Wattyl Australia Pty Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 1

Australian Postal Corporation v Nadge (1994) WAG 36

REASONS FOR DECISION

5 November 2007 Mr S. Webb, Member         

1.       Grazyna (Chris) Layton was injured in employment by Comcare.  She successfully claimed compensation.  However, subsequently Comcare determined that the injury resolved and ceased paying compensation benefits.  Ms Layton requested reconsideration of the determination, which was affirmed.  Unhappy, she placed the matter before the Tribunal for review.

2.      The issue to be determined is whether from 25 May 2006 Ms Layton is entitled to compensation benefits in relation to the psychological injury she suffered in 2003.

the factual context 

3.      Ms Layton commenced employment with Comcare on 19 June 2000.  On 28 February 2003, she consulted Dr J. Broderick, general practitioner, who certified that she was unfit for work as a result of “Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood” caused by “work related stressors viz. unfair promotional processes, frequent shift of worksite, harassment”.[1] 

[1] T4 folios 5 and 6, T13 and T14 refer.

4.      On 10 March 2003, Ms Layton lodged a compensation claim in relation to ‘hypertension’ (which she equated to stress).[2]  She attached a detailed statement in which she set out the circumstances of the claim.[3]  In the statement she identified a number of employment factors that were relevant to her claimed injury including:

(a)perceived favouritism in relation to transfers from the Comcare Call Centre to the Incapacity Claims section and in relation to the Legislative Training Program for Incapacity[4];

(b)perceived unfairness in selection processes in relation to APS level 2, 3 and 4 positions[5];

(c)harassment by a co-worker[6]; and

(d)movement between positions without obtaining a secure position.[7]

[2] T7.

[3] T6.

[4] T6 folios 7 and 8.

[5] T6 folios 8-11.

[6] T6 folios 11 and 12.

[7] T6 folios 12 and 13.

5.      These matters were investigated by Mr Bruce Clark.[8]  On 17 April 2003, Mr P. Pharoah made a statement concerning Mr Clark’s investigation.[9]  It appears that Mr Clark found no merit in Ms Layton’s perceptions of favouritism and unfairness in relation…