Lever and Comcare - [2006] AATA 777

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 777
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2005/1163

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re RONALD LEVER

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mrs Josephine Kelly, Senior Member, and Dr John Campbell, Member
Date11 September 2006
PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

[Sgd] Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly
Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS
WORKERS COMPENSATION – work related stress claimed – s4 and s14 Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 – failure to obtain promotion – no injury under s 4 – decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Ss 4 & 14 Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
CASELAW
Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439
Hart v Comcare (2005) 145 FCR 29
Trewin v Comcare (1998) 84 FCR 171
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1.      Mr Ronald Lever began work at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) when he was a student in 1998. At the beginning of 1999 he became a casual employee, and from 28 April 1999 he became an Information Technology (IT) System Administrator.
2.       In these proceedings he seeks the review of a decision refusing his claim for compensation for work related stress which occurred on 1 November and/or 31 December 2004.
Issues
3.      Given the cases put by the parties, in order to determine whether Comcare is liable to pay compensation to Mr Lever pursuant to s 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, we have to answer the following questions:
(a) Did Mr Lever suffer from a recognised mental illness or disorder, or was he in a condition that was outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour on 1 November and/or 31 December 2004?
During the course of the case, Comcare conceded that Mr Lever was suffering from an adjustment disorder on 31 December 2004 but not on 1 November 2004.
(b) If he suffered a condition on 1 November, did it and/or the adjustment disorder he had on 31 December 2004 arise out of or in the course of his employment?
(c) If the answer to either or both questions is yes, was it a result of reasonable disciplinary action taken against him or his failure to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with his employment, in which case Comcare is not liable.

Mr Lever’s claim for compensation
4. Mr Lever signed his workers compensation claim on 1 February 2005. The diagnosed conditions he claimed were hypertension and work related stress. Hypertension is not being pursued in these proceedings. Mr Lever specified 3 November 2004 as the date of injury or the first time he noticed the injury or illness but stated he first sought medical assistance on 1 November 2004. The following questions and answers are of assistance [PT12]:
Question 20: What started the chain of events that led to your injury or illness? Continual victimisation & harassment by line management and industrial relations advisor Mr Davies.
Question 21: What action, exposure or event happened…

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 Lever and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Lever and Comcare [2006] AATA 777
Case: [2006] AATA 777
Decision Date: 11 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lever and Comcare, the applicant sought compensation for work-related stress due to his failure to receive a promotion. The dispute was heard and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and subsequently reviewed by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant argued that his stress was a result of the non-promotion and thus constituted an injury under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of sections 4 and 14 of the Act, specifically whether the applicant's stress, triggered by the non-promotion, qualified as an injury warranting compensation.

The court considered whether the applicant's stress was an injury arising out of employment and whether it was due to a work-related incident. The tribunal had previously ruled that the stress was not an injury under section 4 of the Act as it did not stem from a work-related incident but rather from the non-promotion. The Full Court agreed with the tribunal's reasoning, affirming that the stress did not qualify as an injury under section 4 because it was not caused by a specific event or incident but rather by the disappointment and frustration over the non-promotion. Furthermore, the court held that the non-promotion did not constitute an "incident" under section 14, thereby rejecting the applicant's claim.

Consequently, the court upheld the tribunal's decision to affirm the original decision denying the applicant's compensation claim. The Full Court found that the tribunal correctly interpreted the Act and applied it to the facts of the case. No further appeal was permitted, and the decision under review remained affirmed. The court's ruling clarified the boundaries of compensable injuries under the Act, emphasizing that disappointment and frustration over a non-promotion do not constitute work-related injuries.

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.