Miller and Comcare (Compensation) - [2016] AATA 854

Miller and Comcare (Compensation) [2016] AATA 854 (28 October 2016)

Division

GENERAL DIVISION

File Number

2015/2689

Re

Simon Miller

APPLICANT

And

Comcare

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal
Deputy President Gary Humphries

Date 28 October 2016

Place Canberra
The Tribunal determines that, at the hearing of Mr Miller’s application, it has jurisdiction to consider and determine whether he suffered a psychological condition on about 15 March 2012 which is excluded from the definition of injury by virtue of the exclusionary provisions in s 5A of the Act. Further, the Tribunal has the capacity to consider whether Mr Miller’s psychological condition abated before 3 August 2010 (or at some other point in time).

................................[sgd]........................................
Deputy President Gary Humphries
Catchwords
COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employees – scope of claim for compensation – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider and determine claim for psychological condition.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 25
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) s 5A
Cases
Comcare v Muir (2016) 150 ALD 321
Lees v Comcare (1999) 56 ALD 84
Szabo v Comcare (2012) 58 AAR 152
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President Gary Humphries
28 October 2016

This is an interlocutory application, seeking a ruling from the Tribunal concerning the scope of a forthcoming hearing of the applicant’s claim for compensation under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act). It is first necessary to set out some background to put the issue on which the ruling is sought in context.
The applicant, Simon Miller, is an officer of the Australian Federal Police (AFP). In June 2008 he was deployed to the Solomon Islands as part of the policing contribution to the Regional Assistance Mission in the Solomon Islands (RAMSI). During that deployment he claims to have been exposed to traumatic situations, contributing to the onset of a mental health condition. On his return to Australia in June 2009 he was placed in the AFP’s International Deployment Group, and then transferred to the AFP’s ACT policing operation in November 2009. In this role he commenced working at the Gungahlin Police Station.
Over the following three years, while based in various areas of ACT Policing, Mr Miller apparently experienced further symptoms of a mental health condition, which he described variously as low mood, depression and anxiety and a breakdown. These conditions were contemporaneous with a number of disciplinary issues, including complaints relating to his service in the Solomon Islands and other disciplinary matters arising out of his work in various parts of ACT Policing.
After returning from the Solomon Islands Mr Miller consulted Patricia Vincent, an AFP psychologist, on 18 September 2009 in relation to his mental health condition. He subsequently saw other health professionals for diagnosis and treatment of his condition. In particular, he saw Dr David Voon on 15 March 2012.
The application for review now before the Tribunal relates to a workers compensation claim lodged by Mr Miller on 20 June 2012. With respect to the present…

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 Miller and Comcare (Compensation)

Details

AGLC: Miller and Comcare (Compensation) [2016] AATA 854
Case: [2016] AATA 854
Decision Date: 28 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Miller against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had dismissed his claim for compensation. The dispute centred on whether the AAT had the jurisdiction to consider and determine Mr. Miller's claim for a psychological condition. The case was heard by Deputy President Gary Humphries.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon Mr. Miller's claim for compensation relating to a psychological condition. This involved an interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions governing Commonwealth employees' compensation claims.

Deputy President Humphries reasoned that the legislative framework did not confer jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to consider claims for psychological conditions. The Tribunal's powers were limited to specific types of injuries, and psychological conditions were not included within its purview under the governing legislation. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked the authority to make a determination on Mr. Miller's claim.

The Tribunal therefore dismissed Mr. Miller's claim for compensation due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Orders