Ramsdale and Comcare - [2011] AATA 40

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 40
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/1069

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re KEVIN GRAEME RAMSDALE

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal The Hon R J Groom AO (Deputy President)
Date31 January 2011
PlaceHobart

Decision
The decision under review is set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent with the following directions:

(a)      The respondent is liable to pay compensation to the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Act in respect of an injury, namely an aggravation of his pre-existing PTSD, suffered by the applicant on or about 18 October 1993.

(b)       The applicant is incapacitated for work as a result of the said injury and has been so incapacitated since 14 May 1995.

(c)       The amount of compensation payable to the applicant is to be assessed.

[Sgd: Hon R J Groom]
Deputy President

CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION - Vietnam war caused PTSD - later employed as police officer by Australian Federal Police - whether police service aggravated his pre-existing PTSD - whether notice given under section 53 of the 1988 Act - "in a material degree" - "aggravation" - PTSD aggravated by police service - decision under review set aside
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, ss 4(1), 4(9), 7(2), 7(4), 14(1), 53
Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, 31(2), 53
Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FCR 316
Comcare v Canute (2005) 148 FCR 232
Suters v Australian Postal Corporation (1992) 28 ALD 320
Comcare v Sahu-Khan [2007] FCA 15
Australian Postal Corporation v Bessey[2001] FCA 266
Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Lucas (1967) 116 CLR 537
REASONS FOR DECISION

31 January 2011 The Hon R J Groom AO (Deputy President)

introduction
1.      Mr Ramsdale rendered war service with the Australian Army in Vietnam. As a result he suffered PTSD. He was later employed for some 20 years by the Australian Federal Police ("AFP").   He was involved in many stressful incidents during his police service. The question for the Tribunal is whether this employment by the AFP has caused an aggravation of his pre-existing PTSD and his continuing incapacity for work.
2.      By determination dated 15 March 1995, Comcare denied liability stating that Mr Ramsdale's claimed condition "was not caused by or aggravated by his service with the AFP". An extension of time was granted to the 3 February 2003 for the applicant to seek a reconsideration of that determination. It was not until 17 December 2007 that a formal request was made for a reconsideration. Comcare accepted that request and proceeded to reconsider the earlier decision.
3.      On 20 February 2008 an Independent Review Officer completed the reconsideration of the decision of 15 March 1995. That reconsideration decision, which is the reviewable decision now before the Tribunal, affirmed the earlier determination.
4.      An application for review of the reconsideration decision dated 5 March 2008 was received and filed in this Tribunal on 13 March 2008.
background
5.      Mr Ramsdale was born on 17…

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 Ramsdale and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Ramsdale and Comcare [2011] AATA 40
Case: [2011] AATA 40
Decision Date: 31 January 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Ramsdale and Comcare was heard, involving a dispute regarding compensation for the aggravation of pre-existing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in the context of employment as a police officer by the Australian Federal Police. The applicant, Mr. Ramsdale, had previously served in the Vietnam war, which caused him PTSD, and later worked for the police force. The central issue before the court was whether his police service materially aggravated his pre-existing PTSD and whether the notice given under section 53 of the Act was sufficient.

The court was required to determine whether the aggravation of Mr. Ramsdale's PTSD was due to his police service and if the notice provided met the threshold of being "in a material degree." The court had to interpret the statutory language to decide if the aggravation was significant enough to constitute a compensable injury under the Act. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the notice given by Mr. Ramsdale to Comcare to ensure it complied with the statutory requirements.

In its reasoning, the court found that the aggravation of Mr. Ramsdale's PTSD was indeed due to his police service and that the notice he gave under section 53 of the Act was sufficient. The court concluded that the aggravation of his condition was in a material degree, and thus the decision under review was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the respondent with directions to pay compensation for the aggravation of PTSD, and to assess the amount of compensation payable.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent with the following directions:

(a) The respondent is liable to pay compensation to the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Act in respect of an injury, namely an aggravation of his pre-existing PTSD, suffered by the applicant on or about 18 October 1993.

(b) The applicant is incapacitated for work as a result of the said injury and has been so incapacitated since 14 May 1995.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		KEVIN GRAEME RAMSDALE