Lockwood and Comcare (Compensation)

Case

[2017] AATA 159

10 February 2017


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Lockwood and Comcare (Compensation) [2017] AATA 159 [2017] AATA 159 10 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by Mr Bryan Lockwood for review of decisions made by Comcare. Comcare had initially accepted liability for Mr Lockwood's aggravation of spinal stenosis in the cervical region and a secondary depressive disorder. However, Comcare later reconsidered these decisions, determining that Mr Lockwood had made wilful and false representations regarding his prior symptoms, and therefore, pursuant to section 7(7) of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act), these conditions were not to be taken as injuries for the purposes of the Act. Mr Lockwood also sought review of a decision relating to compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss for a psychological condition.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Lockwood had suffered a disease contributed to by his employment, or an injury arising out of or in the course of his employment, and if so, whether he still suffered from its effects and was entitled to compensation. Crucially, the Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Lockwood had made wilful and false representations to which section 7(7) of the SRC Act applied, thereby precluding his conditions from being considered injuries under the Act.

The Tribunal found that Mr Lockwood's representation that he had never previously suffered from cervical spine disease was made for purposes connected with his employment and was wilfully false. Applying section 7(7) of the SRC Act, the Tribunal concluded that this disease was not an injury for the purposes of the Act. Consequently, Comcare was not liable to pay Mr Lockwood compensation for this condition.

The Tribunal set aside Comcare's earlier decisions to accept liability for the aggravation of spinal stenosis and the secondary depressive disorder, and substituted a decision that Comcare was not liable to pay compensation for these conditions. The Tribunal also found that Mr Lockwood did not sustain a compensable psychological condition and, if he did, he no longer suffered from its effects.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Employment Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Causation

  • Statutory Construction

  • Remedies

  • Appeal

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

2

Statutory Material Cited

0

Iannella v French [1968] HCA 14