Rahman and Comcare (Compensation) - [2017] AATA 2382

Rahman and Comcare (Compensation) [2017] AATA 2382 (24 November 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2016/1303
Re:Atiqur Rahman
APPLICANT

AndComcare
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Deputy President B W Rayment
Date:24 November 2017
Place:Sydney

The decision under review is affirmed.
........................[sgd]................................................
Deputy President B W Rayment
Catchwords
COMPENSATION – psychological condition – major depressive disorder with prominent anxiety – numerous possible causes – forced transfer to different office – workplace bullying – employer’s refusal to meet applicant’s requests for work-station modifications – demeaning nature of work – whether injury is the result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner – decision affirmed
Legislation
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 5A, 5B
Cases
Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43; 258 CLR 467; 339 ALR 1
Hart and Comcare [2004] AATA 128
Hart v Comcare [2005] FCAFC 16; (2005) 145 FCR 29; (2005) 87 ALD 341
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President B W Rayment
24 November 2017

The applicant seeks review of a decision made by Comcare denying his claim for workers compensation.
He is a gentleman who has a number of degrees. He immigrated from Bangladesh with his wife and son. When the applicant arrived here from Bangladesh, he held a Bachelor of Applied Science and in this country he obtained the degree of Master of Business Administration from the University of Adelaide and Bachelor of Laws from the University of Western Sydney. He completed the coursework for that degree in mid-2014. After resigning from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in 2016, he has become a solicitor.
Starting in 2002, his employment was with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, a department the name of which has changed from time to time. When he resigned in 2016, it was known as the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
There is agreement between a number of medical practitioners that Mr Rahman suffered in 2015 and 2016 from a psychiatric condition.
The contest between the parties is whether his psychiatric condition was the result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. Before discussing that issue I will make findings about the primary facts.
THE POSSIBLE CAUSES OF THE APPLICANT’S PSYCHIATRIC CONDITION
It is necessary to examine four possible causes of his psychiatric condition, in the light of the opinions of a number of psychiatrists, and the applicant’s own evidence. The four possible causes identified in the evidence are:
1the forced move in January 2014 from the department’s Parramatta office to its Sydney office;
2the alleged bullying and belittling of him by two team leaders in succession, from mid to late 2014 to 2015;
3the refusal of the same team leaders to allocate a desk to him beside a window, despite repeated requests on his part because his left eye was injured and he suffered from a cataract, and he needed a well-lit working environment; and
4the demeaning nature of his workplace duties in the…

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 Rahman and Comcare (Compensation)

Details

AGLC: Rahman and Comcare (Compensation) [2017] AATA 2382
Case: [2017] AATA 2382
Decision Date: 24 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the appeal of Mr. Rahman against a decision by Comcare concerning his claim for compensation. Mr. Rahman sought compensation for a psychological condition, specifically major depressive disorder with prominent anxiety, which he attributed to various workplace factors including a forced transfer, alleged bullying, and the employer's refusal to accommodate requests for workstation modifications. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr. Rahman's condition constituted an "injury" as defined by the relevant legislation, particularly in light of the provision that excludes injuries resulting from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

The AAT was required to determine whether Mr. Rahman's psychological condition was the result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. This involved assessing the nature of the actions taken by his employer and whether they were reasonable in their execution, and if so, whether they were the sole cause of his condition. The Tribunal also had to consider the causal link between the alleged workplace stressors and the development of Mr. Rahman's depressive and anxiety disorder.

The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision, finding that the actions taken by the employer, when considered in their totality and in the context of the established legal principles, constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. The reasoning applied by the Tribunal appears to have been informed by the principles articulated in cases such as *Hart's case* and *Martin*, which address the nature of the causal test in such claims. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Mr. Rahman's condition did not meet the criteria for compensation under the relevant legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

It seems to me that Hart’s case and Martin may stand together. Hart did not discuss the nature of the causal test, which Martin has now stated.DECISION The findings which I have made summarized in paragraph [34] above therefore cause me to affirm the reviewable decision.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.