Administrative Appeals Tribunal
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No: 2007/3125
General Administrative Division ) and 2007/3126
Re: Geoffrey Carpenter
Applicant
And: Comcare
RespondentAnd: Bureau of Meteorology
Other PartyCORRIGENDUM 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
RespondentDIRECTION
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
- AGLC
- Re Carpenter and Comcare [2010] AATA 62
- Case
- [2010] AATA 62
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.