Pisani and Comcare - [2004] AATA 441

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 441
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) N2003/658

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re VICTOR PISANI

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal MR S. WEBB, MEMBER
Date6 May 2004
PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is set aside.

[Sgd] Mr S. Webb, Member

CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION - injury – cease liability - work related stress - reactive depression - obsessive compulsive personality style – no jurisdiction to consider whether personality style is an injury or disease under the Act - medical treatment expenses – no claim before Tribunal concerning specific compensation payments – current symptoms not related to accepted condition - reactive depression in remission – liability for injury continues - decision set aside
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 s 4, 14, 16, 17, 19, 24, 60, 62
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 25, 43
Comcare v Burton & Lees (1988) 157 ALR 522
Lees v Comcare (1999) 56 ALD 84
Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia Inc v Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services (1992) 39 FCR 225
Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn (2003) 73 ALD 659
Plumb v Comcare (1992) 39 FCR 236
Rosillo v Telstra Corporation Limited [2003] FCA1628
The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30
Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439
REASONS FOR DECISION

6 May 2004 MR S. WEBB, MEMBER

1.      In this application Mr Pisani disputes Comcare’s determination dated 28 January 2003 that “…we are no longer liable to pay compensation for your [Reactive Depression] claim” (T65). That determination was reconsidered at Mr Pisani’s request and affirmed in a reviewable decision dated 15 April 2003 (T74). Mr Pisani seeks review of that reviewable decision.
2.      The matter came on for hearing in Sydney. Mr Pisani represented himself and Mr Kelly of counsel represented Comcare. Documents were taken into evidence and labelled. Mr Pisani and Dr Skinner gave oral evidence at the hearing.
factual context
3.      The following material facts arise from the evidence before the Tribunal and are not in serious dispute.
4.      Mr Pisani was born on 14 April 1935. He married in 1963 and currently resides with his wife, with whom he has three (adult) children.
5.      Mr Pisani was employed by the Post Master General’s Department from 1968 to 1984 in which year his employment by the Australian Taxation Office (“ATO”) commenced. Mr Pisani resigned from his employment with the ATO on 4 August 1995. He has not been in remunerative employment since that date.
6.      As this case is essentially concerned with medical evidence it is relevant to set out, in brief summary, a chronology of events with reference to Mr Pisani’s various claims for compensation payments and related determinations, as well as relevant medical reports.
7.      In 1994 Mr Pisani was in the employment of the ATO at the Administrative Service Officer grade 2 level. On 2 November 1994 he lodged a claim for compensation in relation to (T5, folio 11):
“Pressure of…

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 Pisani and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Pisani and Comcare [2004] AATA 441
Case: [2004] AATA 441
Decision Date: 6 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pisani and Comcare involved the applicant, Mr. Pisani, and the respondent, Comcare. The dispute centred on the continuing liability of Comcare for Mr. Pisani's work-related stress and the associated reactive depression. Mr. Pisani had previously been awarded compensation for his condition, which arose from his employment as a police officer. The matter was brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which had to determine whether Comcare was still liable for the ongoing effects of Mr. Pisani's condition and the associated medical expenses.

The primary legal issues the tribunal had to address were whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider whether Mr. Pisani's obsessive-compulsive personality style constituted an injury or disease under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, and whether Comcare remained liable for Mr. Pisani's medical treatment expenses. Additionally, the tribunal had to determine whether Mr. Pisani's current symptoms were related to his accepted condition of reactive depression and whether there was a claim before the Tribunal concerning specific compensation payments.

The tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider whether Mr. Pisani's obsessive-compulsive personality style was an injury or disease under the Act. It also found that Mr. Pisani's current symptoms were not related to his accepted condition of reactive depression, which was in remission. However, the tribunal did find that Comcare's liability for Mr. Pisani's injury continued, despite the remission of symptoms, as the condition was ongoing. The tribunal concluded that there was no claim before it concerning specific compensation payments, and therefore, it did not have the authority to make such a determination.

The tribunal set aside the decision under review, recognising that while Mr. Pisani's reactive depression was in remission, Comcare's liability for the ongoing effects of the condition continued. This decision highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in determining ongoing liability for work-related injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is set aside.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.