Meaney and Comcare - [2010] AATA 690

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 690
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2009/5630

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re JOHN MEANEY

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President P E Hack SC; Dr M Denovan, Member
Date10 September 2010
PlaceBrisbane

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

..............Signed................
Deputy President

CATCHWORDS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – entitlement to compensation – employment related injury, disability or disease – applicant suffering from methamphetamine abuse – Tribunal not satisfied that condition had any relationship with employment – decision under review affirmed
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), s 5B, 14
Wiegand v Comcare (2002) 72 ALD 795; [2002] FCA 1464
REASONS FOR DECISION

10 September 2010 Deputy President P E Hack SC; Dr M Denovan, Member

Introduction

The applicant, Mr John Meaney, was employed as an economist in the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) from February 1999 until July 2008 when he resigned from that employment. In February 2009, Mr Meaney lodged a claim with the respondent, Comcare, for compensation pursuant to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the SRC Act).
The claim form lodged described the condition for which compensation was sought as “Stress and Depression” for which treatment had first been sought in December 2007.
Comcare obtained reports from medical and other practitioners who had treated Mr Meaney – Dr Samson Roberts, a consultant psychiatrist, Dr Ercel Ozser a general practitioner and Dr Jennifer Rice, a consultant psychologist – and referred Mr Meaney to another consultant psychiatrist, Dr Robert Gertler, for an opinion on the claim.
On 30 June 2009, Comcare rejected the claim. That decision was affirmed on reconsideration on 1 October 2009. Mr Meaney seeks a review of the decision.
Legislation
By virtue of s 14 of the SRC Act, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with that Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work or impairment. Mr Meaney was an employee and plainly enough was incapacitated for work at various times. The issue in these proceedings is whether the condition which he says has afflicted him is an injury as that term is used in the SRC Act.
It will suffice for present purposes to say that an injury is a disease suffered by an employee, other than a disease suffered as a result of “reasonable administrative action” taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment[1]. The term “disease” is, in turn, defined in s 5B of the SRC Act as meaning
“(a) an ailment suffered by an employee; or
(b) an aggravation of such an ailment;
that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth …”
Subsection 5B(2) of the SRC Act sets out matters that may be taken into account in determining whether employment contributed to, to a significant degree, an ailment or the aggravation of it. It is not necessary in the present case to…

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 Meaney and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Meaney and Comcare [2010] AATA 690
Case: [2010] AATA 690
Decision Date: 10 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Meaney and Comcare involved an application by Mr Meaney for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). Mr Meaney claimed that he suffered from a disease, specifically methamphetamine abuse, which he contended was significantly contributed to by his employment with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Comcare, the respondent, disputed the claim, asserting that there was no significant relationship between Mr Meaney's methamphetamine abuse and his employment. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the primary issue was whether Mr Meaney's methamphetamine abuse was a disease contributed to by his employment to a significant degree.

The court had to determine if Mr Meaney's methamphetamine abuse qualified as a disease under the Act and whether his employment with the ATO contributed to this condition to a significant degree. This involved an analysis of the medical evidence provided by various experts, including Dr Roberts, Dr Ozser, and Dr Rice, as well as considering the statutory definition of "disease" and the threshold of "significant degree" as outlined in the Act. Dr Roberts, a psychiatrist with expertise in drug addiction, opined that Mr Meaney's methamphetamine abuse did not have any relationship with his employment, a view that seemed well-supported by the evidence. Dr Ozser, Mr Meaney's general practitioner, attributed his condition partly to work stress, while Dr Rice, a psychologist, identified workplace stressors as the most likely cause.

The court found that the Tribunal's decision to deny Mr Meaney's claim was correctly made. The medical evidence did not establish a significant relationship between Mr Meaney's methamphetamine abuse and his employment. The court was not satisfied that the condition had any connection to his employment, thus affirming the decision under review. Consequently, Mr Meaney's application for compensation was dismissed.

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

It will suffice for present purposes to say that an injury is a disease suffered by an employee, other than a disease suffered as a result of “reasonable administrative action” taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment[1]. The term “disease” is, in turn, defined in s 5B of the SRC Act as meaning“(a) an ailment suffered by an employee; or (b) an aggravation of such an ailment;that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth …”Subsection 5B(2) of the SRC Act sets out matters that may be taken into account in determining whether employment contributed to, to a significant degree, an ailment or the aggravation of it. It is not necessary in the present case to have regard to those matters. But “significant degree” means “a degree that is substantially more than material”[2].[1] See s 5A SRC Act. [2] See s 5B(3) SRC Act.The medical evidence We had the benefit of evidence from each of Drs Roberts, Ozser, Rice and Gertler. All except Dr Gertler gave oral evidence in addition to the written reports provided. We propose to start with the evidence of Dr Roberts because his particular experience with the treatment of patients with drug addiction makes him best qualified to deal with Mr Meaney’s ailments. That experience is presently relevant because, during much of the period in question, Mr Meaney was using the illicit drug methamphetamine. Indeed, in October 2007, Mr Meaney was referred to Dr Roberts by his general practitioner for assistance with his drug use. Dr Roberts saw Mr Meaney on nine occasions between October 2007 and December 2008. Dr Robert’s opinion is that Mr Meaney suffered from an ailment which he described as methamphetamine abuse in early partial remission. Such an ailment, according to Dr Roberts, is frequently accompanied by depression, anxiety, delusions (which may last for years) and paranoia. But these are not separate conditions, they are merely symptoms of the underlying condition of methamphetamine abuse. The view of Dr Roberts was that “there is no relationship between Mr Meaney’s condition and his employment.” That conclusion seems eminently sound. Dr Ozser, Mr Meaney’s general practitioner between November 2006 and December 2008 described Mr Meaney’s condition as major depression, contributed to by amphetamine dependence and work stress. Dr Ozser’s conclusion about the effects of what he describes as work stress were very much influenced by Mr Meaney’s self-report of matters within the employment setting that he believed were factors contributing to his condition. Dr Rice is, of course, a psychologist, not a medical practitioner and thus may be regarded as a less reliable diagnostician of medical disorders than a psychiatrist. She was of the view that when she saw Mr Meaney in early 2009 he was suffering from an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, chronic, of moderate severity. Dr Rice considered that the most likely cause were four “workplace stressors” recounted to her by Mr Meaney and described by her as“• perceived discrimination and intimidation in his former workplace, by senior members of the ATO, including his immediate manager;• obstruction by the ATO of his plan to leave Australia to work overseas with a large accounting firm after he had resigned from his position;• an internal ATO investigation of him with threat of criminal action pending; and • financial privation due to suspension from duties without pay in July 2008.”

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.