Perry and Australian Postal Commission

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 712

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2003/371

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		PATRICIA PERRY

Applicant

And AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms M J Carstairs, Member

Date28 July 2005

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review. 

.................[Sgd]...................

M J Carstairs
  Member

21.      Dr M Pokarier, general practitioner, prepared several reports (T12, T13, T22, and T26).  In his oral evidence he said that the applicant had been his patient since 1997 and that prior to 2002 she had made no complaint of a psychiatric nature.  In his report dated 25 January 2003 (T22) he certified her fit to return to her pre-injury duties, with the proviso that she have counselling until 25 March 2003.   Dr Pokarier stated that he knew of no factors other than her employment that accounted for the applicant’s distress in December 2002.

22.     In a report dated 12 November 2003 (exhibit R2) Dr D Alcorn, psychiatrist, diagnosed the applicant as having suffered an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood from mid-November 2002 until about March 2003.  Dr Alcorn said that the applicant had recovered fully and required no further medical treatment.  Dr Alcorn considered that a number of factors led to the development of the condition:  mainly her perception that she was treated inequitably when allocated to the 8:24am shift when others were allocated to areas where safety shoes were not required; and her feelings that she was discriminated against in regard to early approval for specially fitted safety shoes.  He stated that her condition remitted when the issues of the safety shoes and her preferred shifts were resolved.

CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES

23.     Section 14 of the Act is the central provision for liability to pay compensation, creating the liability, subject to other provisions of the Act, to pay compensation in respect of injury which is a term defined in s4 of the Act.

24.      The medical evidence in the applicant’s case is undisputed.  The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Dr Pokarier and Dr Alcorn that the applicant suffered from work-related stress, and accepts the diagnosis of Dr Alcorn that this was an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood which lasted between mid-November 2002 and March 2003.   The Tribunal accepts that this medical condition comes within the definitions of ailment and disease within s4 of the Act.  The question is whether it comes within the definition of injury in s4, as is required for liability for compensation to arise, within the terms of s14.   Not every affront or loss that a person may suffer in connection with employment is an injury. 

25.     Section 4 of the Act provides the following definition of injury:

injury means:

(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or

(b) an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, being a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment; or

(c) an aggravation of…