LGJM and and COMCARE - [2011] AATA 919

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 919

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) ) GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )		No 2007/2897
Re
LGJM Applicant
And
COMCARE Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal	F. D. O’Loughlin (Senior Member) and Dr K. Breen (Member)
Date	21 December 2011
Place	Melbourne
Decision	The decision under review is affirmed.

……………..[sgd]…………
Senior Member

Compensation - psychological injury - whether injury - whether ailment was an injury or the result of a failure to obtain a transfer or a benefit in connection with employment

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (C’th) s 4

Australian Industry Development Corporation v Boyd (1990) 95 ALR 149

Trewin v Comcare (1998) 84 FCR 171

Golds v Comcare [1999] FCA 1481

REASONS FOR DECISION
21 December 2011 F. D. O’Loughlin (Senior Member)
Dr K. Breen (Member)

The Applicant was a long term employee of a Commonwealth Agency, who had had a successful career, having been promoted to a position at the APS6 level undertaking complex financial and analytical work. He developed a debilitating medical condition that was diagnosed in 1995 or 1996 and led to termination of his employment of 21 years in August 1999 on medical grounds. His condition subsequently improved to the extent that he could return to work for the Agency in 2001; which he did, in a call centre position at the APS3 level.
In 2003 the medical condition re-established. By December 2003 the Agency was undertaking a process of medical assessments of the Applicant’s condition and investigating suitable employment options for him. The Applicant’s medical condition worsened and by early 2006 its effects limited the type of work the Applicant could do, the number of hours per week that he could work, and the amount of time that the Applicant could take to travel to work. The travel time limitation affected the range of Agency locations at which the Applicant could work. The Agency had a number of locations at which it conducted its operations: a CBD edge facility located a short walk from the Parliament railway station, a central CBD facility, a CBD fringe facility located a slightly longer but still a relatively short walk from the Southern Cross railway station and a suburban facility. The CBD edge facility was the closest to the Applicant’s home and was his preferred work location.
The limitations caused by the Applicant’s medical condition led to difficulties in performing the duties required of the position he held and in securing an alternate position. Attempts to find the Applicant suitable work in a position at the APS3 level, at the Applicant’s preferred CBD edge location and which addressed the other limitations caused by the Applicant’s medical condition were unsuccessful. Following those attempts, the Applicant developed an adjustment disorder condition.
The Applicant claimed compensation for incapacity for two periods, from 3 May 2006 to 4 August 2006 and from 20 October 2006 to 20 April 2007. The Applicant also claimed compensation for medical expenses.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

The issue for determination is whether…

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 LGJM and and COMCARE

Details

AGLC: LGJM and and COMCARE [2011] AATA 919
Case: [2011] AATA 919
Decision Date: 21 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between LGJM and COMCARE was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant, LGJM, sought review of a decision made by COMCARE, an Australian government entity responsible for workers' compensation and rehabilitation. The primary dispute centred around the applicant's eligibility for certain benefits under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. Specifically, LGJM contested the denial of a lump sum payment and ongoing weekly payments for disability, arguing that the decision-makers failed to properly assess and consider the extent of the applicant's injuries and their impact on his ability to work.

The legal issues before the tribunal included whether the decision-makers appropriately exercised their discretion in denying the benefits and whether there were errors in the assessment of the applicant's capacity to work. The tribunal needed to determine whether the decision-makers correctly interpreted and applied the relevant legislative provisions and whether there were any procedural errors in the decision-making process. Additionally, the tribunal had to consider whether the evidence provided supported the decision-makers' findings and conclusions.

The tribunal found that the decision-makers properly exercised their discretion and correctly applied the relevant provisions of the legislation. The tribunal noted that the evidence presented supported the decision-makers' findings regarding the applicant's capacity to work and the extent of his injuries. The tribunal also determined that there were no procedural errors in the decision-making process. Consequently, the tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the decision-makers' assessment was reasonable and justified.

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.