Mayo and Australian Postal Corporation - [2011] AATA 249

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 249
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )
)           No 2008/5760
  )                  2009/0117

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re BEN MAYO

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President S D Hotop
Date14 April 2011
PlacePerth

Decision

The Tribunal:

Application No 2008/5760

· sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution therefor, decides that the respondent has continued on and from 16 October 2008 to be, and is presently, liable to pay compensation to the applicant, in accordance with the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“SRC Act”), in respect of an injury, namely, “muscle strain back and neck”, sustained on 21 April 2006;

Application No 2009/0117

· sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution therefor, decides that the respondent is liable, pursuant to s 14(1) and Part VIII of the SRC Act, to pay compensation to the applicant in respect of a mental injury, namely, Pain Disorder associated with both psychological factors and a general medical condition, sustained on 31 July 2007.

Application may be made to the Tribunal in relation to the costs of these proceedings within 14 days of the date of this decision. In the event that no such application is made by that date, the Tribunal orders, pursuant to s 67(8) of the SRC Act, that the costs of these proceedings incurred by the applicant be paid by the respondent in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Tribunal’s Guide to the Workers’ Compensation Jurisdiction.

..........[sgd S D Hotop]........
Deputy President
Deputy President

The Applicant’s Evidence
13.     The applicant affirmed the contents of his signed witness statement, dated 2 November 2010, as follows:
“ …
Personal Background
…
10.     I left high school after completing Year 10.
11.     Upon finishing high school I immediately sought employment.
Employment History
12.My first job upon leaving school was at a local nursery. I worked there for approximately 2 months.

13. Two days after leaving the nursery I commenced working at Chicken Treat.
14.Whilst working full-time at Chicken Treat doing day shifts I also worked part-time at TImezone some nights.

15. I worked at Chicken Treat for approximately 5 years.
16.When I had obtained employment at Australia Post I then gave Chicken Treat my notice. I had no time off in between working for Chicken Treat and working for Australia Post.
17.I started working for Australia Post when I was 20 years of age on 16 November 1998.
18.I started work for Australia Post as a Cleaner at the Perth Mail Centre.
19.I became a Mail Officer for Australia Post after approximately 1 year of working for them as a Cleaner.
20.During my employment with Australia Post I have primarily been a Mail Officer. However, I have acted in the following roles: Senior Mail Officer and Mail Process Coordinator Level 3.
21.When I was the acting Mail Process Coordinator I was effectively in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mayo and Australian Postal Corporation 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] AATA 249
Decision Date: 14 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mayo applied to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal for review of decisions by the Australian Postal Corporation that it was not liable to pay compensation for a psychological condition resulting from a workplace injury. Mayo had been employed by the Australian Postal Corporation and suffered a soft tissue injury to his lumbar spine in an employment-related motor vehicle accident in April 2006. The Australian Postal Corporation accepted liability to pay compensation to Mayo. Mayo continued to suffer lower back pain symptoms resulting from the injury. The Australian Postal Corporation determined that it was not liable to pay compensation from October 2008. Mayo claimed compensation for a psychological condition resulting from the physical injury, which the Australian Postal Corporation denied.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Australian Postal Corporation was liable to pay compensation for the psychological condition. The Tribunal found that Mayo suffered a major depressive episode and pain disorder associated with psychological factors and a general medical condition as a result of the physical injury. The Tribunal found that the major depressive episode was not a compensable injury, and that the Australian Postal Corporation was not liable to pay compensation for the major depressive episode. The Tribunal found that the pain disorder was a compensable injury, and that the Australian Postal Corporation was liable to pay compensation for the pain disorder.

The Tribunal set aside the decisions under review and, in substitution therefor, decided that the Australian Postal Corporation had continued on and from 16 October 2008 to be, and was presently, liable to pay compensation to Mayo, in accordance with the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“SRC Act”), in respect of an injury, namely, “muscle strain back and neck”, sustained on 21 April 2006. The Tribunal also decided that the Australian Postal Corporation was liable, pursuant to s 14(1) and Part VIII of the SRC Act, to pay compensation to Mayo in respect of a mental injury, namely, Pain Disorder associated with both psychological factors and a general medical condition, sustained on 31 July 2007.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal:

Application No 2008/5760

· sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution therefor, decides that the respondent has continued on and from 16 October 2008 to be, and is presently, liable to pay compensation to the applicant, in accordance with the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“SRC Act”), in respect of an injury, namely, “muscle strain back and neck”, sustained on 21 April 2006;

Application No 2009/0117

· sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution therefor, decides that the respondent is liable, pursuant to s 14(1) and Part VIII of the SRC Act, to pay compensation to the applicant in respect of a mental injury, namely, Pain Disorder associated with both psychological factors and a general medical condition, sustained on 31 July 2007.

Application may be made to the Tribunal in relation to the costs of these proceedings within 14 days of the date of this decision. In the event that no such application is made by that date, the Tribunal orders, pursuant to s 67(8) of the SRC Act, that the costs of these proceedings incurred by the applicant be paid by the respondent in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Tribunal’s Guide to the Workers’ Compensation Jurisdiction.

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.