Macedo and Comcare

[2010] AATA 1037

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 1037

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/2982, 2009/1494,

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)               2009/0079 & 2009/3483
Re		DANTE MACEDO

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N Bell, Senior Member
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member

Date21 December 2010   

PlaceSydney

Decision The Tribunal affirms the reviewable decisions of 16 June 2008 (2008/2982), 25 November 2008 (2009/0079), 25 March 2009 (2009/1494) and 22 July 2009 (2009/3483). 

......................[sgd]...............................

Ms N Bell, Presiding Member   

CATCHWORDS – Compensation – psychiatric condition – depressive disorder – injury – aggravation of condition – material contribution by employment – failure to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit – reasonable administrative action

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988

Hart v Comcare (2005) 87 ALD 341

Mooi v Comcare (1996) 42 ALD 495

Re Carpenter and Comcare [2010] AATA 62

Wiegand v Comcare (2002) 72 ALD 795

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms N Bell, Senior Member
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member

1.      Mr Dante Macedo came to Australia from Peru in 1980 when he was 27 years old. In Peru he had obtained a degree in Economics and worked as an economic planner.  When he arrived in Australia he underwent an English course and was later employed as a clerical officer with the NSW Department of Education.  In 1992 he joined the Australian Taxation Office, initially as a Level 1 officer and progressed to be a Level 3 officer, working in the complex audit section. In 1994 he was transferred to the Child Support Agency, as a Level 3 officer.

2.      Mr Macedo contends that he first suffered from a psychiatric condition in 1999. He has made four applications for review.  They concern three incidents in particular which Mr Macedo says gave rise to or aggravated his psychiatric condition:

(a)An incident in October 1999 in which Mr Macedo was allegedly reprimanded for attending training on a flex day.  Mr Macedo says this was an example of his supervisor’s failure to support him in obtaining training to carry out his duties.

(b)An incident in July 2006 when Mr Macedo was attending a “team huddle” in which Mr Macedo moved in order to better hear the speaker.  He contends that a co-worker berated him for taking her position.

(c)An incident in May 2007 when Mr Macedo had returned to work to attend refresher training.  He contends he had to leave the training session because he felt unwell and that, notwithstanding he was unwell, he was called to a meeting and reprimanded about his conduct in the training session.

3.      Throughout the eight year period these incidents span, Mr Macedo was treated by psychiatrists and certified unfit for work at various times.  There is no dispute that Mr Macedo has had a very difficult time and experienced a great deal of pain and anguish and has been, at some points, quite ill and unable to work.  The central question is whether he is entitled to be compensated for this incapacity.