Re Carpenter and Comcare

Case [2010] AATA 62


Administrative Appeals Tribunal

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL        )

)         No: 2007/3125

General Administrative Division           )               and 2007/3126

Re: Geoffrey Carpenter
Applicant

And: Comcare
Respondent

And: Bureau of Meteorology
Other Party

CORRIGENDUM TO DECISION NO. [2010] AATA 62

TRIBUNAL:             Deputy President D G Jarvis

DATE:                      21 July 2010

PLACE:                   Adelaide

The Tribunal directs the Registrar, pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), to alter the text of the decision in the within proceedings by deleting the words “that definition only arises”, after the word “injury” in the third sentence of paragraph 104 on page 37, and replacing those words with the words “the exceptions to that definition only arise”.

D G Jarvis
  (Signed)
  (Deputy President)

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL        )

)         No: 2007/3125

General Administrative Division           )

Re: Geoffrey Carpenter
Applicant

And: Comcare
Respondent

DIRECTION

TRIBUNAL:             Deputy President D G Jarvis

DATE:                      1 February 2010

PLACE:                   Adelaide

Pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the TRIBUNAL DIRECTS the Registrar to alter the text of the reasons for decision in this matter by:

1.deleting the words “word “results””, where those words appear in the anti-penultimate and penultimate sentences of paragraph 105 on page 36 of the decision; and

2.substituting the words “expression “as a result of”” in each sentence.

D G Jarvis
  (Signed)
  (Deputy President)

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 62

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )     Nos. 2007/3125

)               and 2007/3126

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION )
Re GEOFFREY CARPENTER

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President D G Jarvis

Date29 January 2010

PlaceAdelaide

Decision

The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review, and:
(a)      in place of those decisions decides that

·     the respondent is liable for the condition of generalised anxiety disorder from which the applicant has been suffering since November 1990, and

·     the degree of permanent impairment resulting from the applicant’s generalised anxiety disorder should be assessed at 10%;

(b)      remits the matter to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons;

(c)       reserves liberty to apply within 14 days in relation to the costs of the proceedings; and

(d)      orders that in the absence of any such application, the respondent is to pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant.

D G Jarvis
  (Signed)
  Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employee – whether generalised anxiety disorder was contributed to by employment in a material degree – claim for permanent impairment – meaning of “injury”, “disease”, “aggravation” and “results” – pre-existing vulnerability of applicant to stressful events – perception of victimisation, bullying and illegal practice in connection with employment – onset of anxiety disorder some years after cessation of employment – relevance of applicant’s intervening unsuccessful grievance complaints and activities as a whistleblower – held that employment contributed to anxiety disorder in a material degree – held that failure to obtain benefit contributed, but not to a material degree, to anxiety disorder – decisions under…

Continue reading Re Carpenter and Comcare

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Carpenter and Comcare [2010] AATA 62
Case
[2010] AATA 62
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was between an applicant, who was a Commonwealth employee, and Comcare. The applicant sought compensation for a generalised anxiety disorder that arose from their employment. The Tribunal had to determine if the employment contributed materially to the anxiety disorder, and if the failure to obtain benefit also contributed materially to the condition. The applicant also claimed compensation for permanent impairment resulting from the anxiety disorder.

The legal issues that the Tribunal had to decide included the interpretation of terms such as "injury", "disease", "aggravation" and "results" under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The Tribunal also had to consider the relevance of the applicant's unsuccessful grievance complaints and activities as a whistleblower. The applicant argued that their employment contributed materially to the anxiety disorder, and that the failure to obtain benefit also contributed materially to the condition. Comcare, on the other hand, argued that the applicant's pre-existing vulnerability to stressful events meant that the employment did not contribute materially to the anxiety disorder.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's employment did contribute materially to the anxiety disorder. The Tribunal held that the exception to the definition of "injury" in section 4 of the Act should be interpreted in the context of the provision imposing liability. The Tribunal also held that the meaning of "results" in section 14 of the Act implied a requirement of materiality in causation of excepted events. The Tribunal found that the failure to obtain benefit did not contribute materially to the anxiety disorder. The Tribunal set aside the decisions under review and ordered Comcare to pay compensation for the anxiety disorder and to assess the degree of permanent impairment resulting from the condition. The Tribunal also reserved liberty to apply within 14 days in relation to the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review, and:

(a) in place of those decisions decides that

· the respondent is liable for the condition of generalised anxiety disorder from which the applicant has been suffering since November 1990, and

· the degree of permanent impairment resulting from the applicant’s generalised anxiety disorder should be assessed at 10%;

(b) remits the matter to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons;

(c) reserves liberty to apply within 14 days in relation to the costs of the proceedings; and

(d) orders that in the absence of any such application, the respondent is to pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant.

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.