Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve [2012] FCA FC 21 Rutledge and Comcare [2011] AATA 865 Drenth and Comcare[2011] AATA 582 KRDV and National Australia Bank Limited [2011] AATA 210
The Applicant joined (what is now) Centrelink in April 1991 and developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in the context of workplace events with her last aggravation, which was accepted by Comcare, occurring in February 2012.
Also accepted by Comcare in 2010 was a ‘shoulder injury’ and these injuries are related to her ongoing psychological problems.
On 16 April 2013:
(a)The Applicant learned from her Comcare Case Manager that her claim for her shoulder injury was going to be declined (on the basis of an IME stating that she was ‘faking it’);
(b)The Applicant telephoned her Rehabilitation Case Manager, Ms Cushion;
(c)The Applicant and the rehabilitation provider discussed the implications of the declinature of her claim;
(d)The rehabilitation provider reportedly told the Applicant it was likely that she would be returned to ‘normal duties’;
(e)The Applicant understood this to mean that it was likely she would be exposed to clients again and that she would be placed back in an unsafe situation (including having to leave at a time when there were fewer employees at the workplace);
(f)The Applicant became ‘panicked’ at the prospect of this and decompensated psychologically;
(g)It is agreed by all medical examiners that the Applicant’s fears of being returned to pre- (original) injury duties played a significant role in the ‘aggravation’ of her PTSD;
(h)At the time these events occurred the claimant was performing suitable duties [i.e. no…
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 Pedersen and Comcare (Compensation)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Pedersen and Comcare (Compensation) [2016] AATA 449
Case
[2016] AATA 449
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning a compensation claim by the Applicant against Comcare. The Applicant sought compensation for anxiety and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), alleging that her employment had significantly contributed to her condition. The core dispute revolved around whether the actions taken by her employer constituted a contribution to her psychological injury and, if so, whether those actions were reasonable administrative actions taken in a reasonable manner.
The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the administrative actions of Comcare could be characterised as contributing to the aggravation of the Applicant's condition "by the employee's employment" for the purposes of section 5B of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). Secondly, if this threshold was met, the Tribunal had to consider whether those administrative actions amounted to "reasonable administrative actions taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee's employment" under section 5A(2)(f) of the same Act.
The Tribunal considered the Applicant's employment history, which included several distressing incidents involving clients, a transfer to a new position she found distressing, and a subsequent restriction of her duties to avoid face-to-face client contact. A key event was the Applicant hearing about a client threatening to return to the workplace with a gun, which she alleged exacerbated her anxiety. A consultant psychiatrist diagnosed an adjustment disorder with anxiety, linking it to the stressful nature of her employment, including ongoing threats. The Tribunal's reasoning focused on whether these employment-related stressors and the employer's responses constituted a significant contribution to her condition and whether any administrative actions taken by the employer were reasonable.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
The remaining issues to be determined as set out in the Respondent's submissions were common ground between the parties:(a)Can the administrative actions of the Respondent be characterised such that those actions amounted to a contribution to the aggravation of the condition “by the employee's employment” for the purposes of section 5B of the SRC Act?(b)If so, do the administrative actions amount to being “reasonable administrative actions taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employees employment” for the purposes of section 5A of the SRC Act and more particularly sub-paragraph 5A(2)(f)? BACKGROUND On 21 November 2012 the Applicant, born 19 April 1969, claimed compensation in respect of anxiety/PTSD (PTSD). The Applicant has, however, had the following claims also accepted by the Respondent as compensable: The Applicant commenced employment with the then Department of Social Security on 15 April 1991. In December 1993 in the course of her employment she was involved in an incident where a client threatened to harm her and also had begun to make threatening phone calls to her at home. In September 1994 in the course of her of employment she witnessed an incident where a client went “ballistic” causing damage to the office and threatening to kill the Applicant. In 2000 the Applicant was transferred into a new position of “personal adviser” and she alleges that at times she found this position distressing. On 25 March 2004 the Applicant seemingly suffered a panic attack when at the Launceston Mall alleging, she recalls, that some months prior to this incident witnessing one of her clients involved in a brawl at the same location. On 26 March 2004 while driving to work the Applicant alleges that she felt unable to breathe and after working for a short period of time suffered a further panic attack and was subsequently certified unfit for work until 13 April 2004. About the end of 2006 the Applicant’s duties were permanently restricted from requiring her to undertake face to face contact with Centrelink clients. The Applicant further alleges that between 2007 and April 2013 she had increasing difficulties with her “psychological condition and her employment”. Moreover, the Applicant alleged on 6 February 2012 she heard about an incident where a client attended the Centrelink Launceston office and threatened to return with a gun. As a result of hearing of this incident and the subsequent response by Centrelink the Applicant says she suffered from increased anxiety, hyper-vigilance, felt frightened to walk near the Centrelink building and had difficulty concentrating and suffered fear at work. In late November 2012 she made a claim for compensation in respect of the incident of February 2012. Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Rhonda Dotson, diagnosed her as suffering from an adjustment disorder with Anxiety that was related to the stressful nature of the Applicant’s employment involving ongoing threats and unpleasantness and remained affected by the symptoms associated with those stresses and would remain so until she was removed to another position or with another employer. The Applicant evidently was moved to another section of Centrelink away from contacts with clients, other than outbound ad hoc telephone contact with Centrelink clients.