MORONSKI and COMCARE

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 277

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/5599
  )               2008/5600

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		SARA PATRICIA MORONSKI

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member
Dr M. Miller AO, Member

Date20 April 2010

PlaceCanberra

Decision The decisions under review are affirmed.

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

Mr S. Webb, Presiding Member

5.      The issues for determination are:

(a)did Dr Moronski suffer a compensable psychological injury, and if so

(b)did the injury materially contribute to ischaemic heart disease, giving rise to a fresh injury, and

(c)did the injury or injuries result in his death?

did dr moronski suffer a compensable psychological injury?

6.      

Comcare asserts that Dr Moronski’s “aggravation of a disease, namely biological depression with acute onset to a moderately severe degree”[1] in 1988 was accepted as an injury on the basis of medical knowledge at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight and in consideration of advances in psychiatry, the depression

Dr Moronski suffered was not related to anything in his former employment.

In Comcare’s submission, there is no bar to the Tribunal making a finding that is contrary to the original acceptance of liability for the depression injury, even though that acceptance determination has not been the subject of a reconsideration decision.[2] Comcare says that Dr Moronski’s depression was of an endogenous kind, being of constitutional origin, and it would have arisen in any event without any relationship to employment. Comcare’s position is that Dr Moronski’s depressive disorder predated and gave rise to the difficulties he experienced at work in December 1987. Comcare relies on the recent reports and oral evidence of

Dr John Saboisky,[3] and asserts that Dr Moronski’s depressive disorder was not an injury that occurred in compensable circumstances.

[1] T27 folio 87.

[2] Telstra Corporation Limited v Hannaford (2006) 151 FCR 253 at [57].

[3] Exhibit R1.

7.      We do not agree.

8.      The issue is to be considered under section 124 of the Act and sections 27 and 29 the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Compensations Act 1971 (the 1971 Act). Essentially, an injury includes a disease, or the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of the disease, to which the employment was a contributing factor.

9.      Dr Moronski had no serious history of depression prior to 1987.[4] He commenced Commonwealth employment in January 1981 and undertook the duties of his employment without issue and without apparently suffering from depression until 1987.

[4] See 26 and 26a, for example.

10.     

We are reasonably satisfied that Dr Moronski suffered a depressive disorder that commenced or emerged in 1987. On 29 January 1988 he complained to

Dr Stephen Jamieson, his treating general practitioner, of gradually increasing symptoms from November 1987.[5] Dr Jamieson reported that Dr Moronski complained of intense anxiety and depression and of “being trapped in an impossible situation”.[6] The Doctor diagnosed “severe depression” and identified three precipitating factors: “ongoing conflicts with a superior officer culminating in an…