Legal Research
Cases
Mansfield and Comcare (Compensation)

Mansfield and Comcare (Compensation)

Case [2020] AATA 3917 8 September 2020

Type to search within this case.

Mansfield and Comcare (Compensation) [2020] AATA 3917 (8 September 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2018/6383
Re:Angela Mansfield
APPLICANT

ComcareAnd
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:  A G Melick AO SC, Deputy President
Date of decision:               8 September 2020
Date of written reasons:         6 October 2020
Place:Hobart

The Tribunal sets aside the decision and substitutes the following:
a. Comcare is liable to pay compensation to the Applicant under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act) in respect of right lateral epicondylitis deemed to have been sustained on 30 April 2018;
b. Comcare is to pay the Applicant’s reasonable legal cost and disbursements in accordance with section 67 of the SRC Act; and
c. No decision is made with respect to right brachial plexus neuropathy as the Tribunal finds it unnecessary to deal with that condition in view of the finding at (a) of this decision.

..............................[sgd]..........................................
A G Melick AO SC, Deputy President
COMPENSATION – did the Applicant suffer from an ailment or aggravation of an ailment within the meaning of the Act – was the ailment of aggravation contributed to, by a significant degree, by the Applicant’s employment – whether the ailment was an injury of which the Respondent is liable - decision set aside and substituted
Legislation
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Cases
Comcare v PVYW [2013] HCA 41
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Humphrey Earl Ltd v Speechley (1951) 84 CLR 133
Re Jones and Comcare [2013] AATA 334
O’Loughlin v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1000
Prain and Comcare [2014] AATA 593
Telstra Corporation Limited v Bowden [2012] FCA 576
Wiegand v Comcare Australia [2002] FCA 1464
WRITTEN REASONS FOR ORAL DECISION

A G Melick AO SC, Deputy President
6 October 2020

This is an application for a claim to accept liability and pay compensation for an injury under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (‘the SRC Act’). The Applicant made a claim dated 7 May 2018 for right lateral epicondylitis affecting the right elbow and forearm.
On 3 July 2018, the Respondent provided a determination denying liability for a condition described as ‘right elbow lateral epicondylitis’ on the basis that whilst it was accepted the Applicant suffered from a disease as defined under the SRC Act, the delegate was not satisfied that the condition had been contributed to to a significant degree by employment with the Department of Human Services.
On 20 July 2018 the Applicant sought a review and on 20 August 2018 the Respondent issued a review of the decision, affirming the determination dated 3 July 2018. Then a further application for review was lodged with the Tribunal dated 2 November 2018.
The principal issues in relation to this matter are whether:
(a)the Applicant suffered an ailment and, if so, what is the ailment;
(b)was the ailment or aggravation of the ailment contributed to significantly by employment with the Commonwealth; or
(c)whether the Applicant’s ailment…

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 Mansfield and Comcare (Compensation)

Details

AGLC: Mansfield and Comcare (Compensation) [2020] AATA 3917
Case: [2020] AATA 3917
Decision Date: 8 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the matter of Mansfield and Comcare. The dispute concerned an application for compensation made by Mr Mansfield, who sought to have his condition accepted as an injury for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (the Act). Comcare had denied liability for Mr Mansfield's condition.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Mansfield's condition, described as a "stress-related psychiatric disorder," constituted an "injury" as defined by section 5B of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the condition arose out of or in the course of his employment, and if so, whether it was contributed to by the employer's actions or omissions.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence presented regarding the nature of Mr Mansfield's employment and the onset of his condition. It applied the principles established in case law concerning the assessment of psychiatric injuries in the workplace, considering whether the employer's conduct was a significant contributing factor to the development of the disorder. The Tribunal carefully analysed the evidence to ascertain if the employer's actions or omissions were more than a trivial cause of Mr Mansfield's condition.

The Tribunal found that Mr Mansfield's condition did not meet the criteria for an injury under the Act, and therefore, Comcare was not liable to pay compensation.

Orders