Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 52
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/3834
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re IAN MACDONALD Applicant
And
BHP BILLITON LTD
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Dr J D Campbell, Member Date27 January 2010
PlaceSydney
Decision The decision under review is affirmed. ....................[Sgd]...................
Dr J D Campbell
Member
3. In an accompanying statement dated 5 October 2007 (T5), Mr MacDonald detailed that he had indicated to Dr De Bruyn that his date of injury was 8 December 1992, as this was the date he first signed articles in his new role environment of marine engineering, after three years in the IR type role. Mr MacDonald further recorded that:
The difficulties I had and still have relating to conformity issues as part of the role change process certainly began after that date and intensified exponentially after January 1994 when I signed articles as a licensed engineer … It is only very recently that I have begun to realise the effects to me from the system change that I was a part of.
4. On 21 January 2008, the Respondent denied liability in relation to Mr MacDonald’s claim for compensation for a psychiatric injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with BHP Billiton between 1993 and 1999, pursuant to sections 3, 9, 26 and 28 of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (the Act).
5. Mr MacDonald applied for review on 17 April 2008. On 19 June 2008, the Respondent affirmed its earlier determination of 21 January 2008. This is the reviewable decision before me.
issues
6. The relevant issues in this matter are:
(a)Does Mr MacDonald suffer from a psychiatric condition and, if so, what is the diagnostic nature of that psychiatric condition?
(b)Did Mr MacDonald’s psychiatric condition arise out of or in the course of his seafaring employment with BHP Billiton?
(c) Is Mr MacDonald entitled to be paid compensation pursuant to the Act?
further background material
7. Mr MacDonald detailed the following circumstances of his life and employment history:
· He had a relatively happy childhood, leaving school at age 16, having completed year 10.
· He completed a four year apprenticeship with NSW Railways in fitting and machining, during which he “upset the apple cart”, when he broke a demarcation rule and fitted a copper pipe in an engine refit which led to a stop work meeting.
· In 1978, he motorcycled to Rockhampton (Yeppoon) to work on prawn trawlers in summer months and other jobs in the winter months (bush fencing). This seasonal activity continued for about five years during which time he teamed up with a girl, worked a number of mining and oil jobs during the winter months as well as an unlicensed aircraft maintenance engineer, had two drink driving charges and was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident after which he was hospitalised with a fractured skull for 10 days. After receiving a pay out from the accident, he…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read MACDONALD and BHP BILLITON LTD and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] AATA 52
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to decide if Mr. MacDonald's psychiatric condition was a result of his employment, if it was work-related, and if it arose out of or in the course of his employment with multiple employers, including BHP Billiton Ltd. The court also needed to consider the relevant provisions of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and how they applied to Mr. MacDonald's situation. It had to assess whether the decision to deny compensation was correct based on the evidence and the law.
The court found that Mr. MacDonald's psychiatric condition was not a result of his employment but rather arose from a pre-existing condition that was exacerbated by work-related stress. The court held that the decision to deny compensation was correct, as the condition did not arise out of or in the course of his employment. The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that Comcare was not liable to pay compensation to Mr. MacDonald. This decision was based on the evidence presented and the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.
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.