Re Clement and Comcare

[2010] AATA 296

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 296

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          A200600055
  )          A200600157
  )          2008/1878
  )          2008/1879
  )          2008/1880
  )          2008/2746
  )          2008/3046
  )          2009/1247
  )          2009/1248
  )          2009/4524
  )          2009/5084

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		KRISTINE CLEMENT

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member
Dr M. Miller AO, Member

Date23 April 2010

PlaceCanberra

Decision The decisions under review are affirmed.

.................[sgd].....................

Mr S. Webb, Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION - accepted psychological injury - incapacity and medical treatment expenses claims - delusional disorder - previously accepted injury not supported by balance of present evidence - no entitlement to compensation for incapacity or medical treatment expenses - decisions affirmed

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 14, 16, 19, 57

Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439

Telstra Corporation Limited v Hannaford (2006) 151 FCR 253

Ilsley v Wattyl Australia Pty Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 1

March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506

Smith v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 164 CLR 513

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Maritime Union of Australia (2001) 114 FCR 472

O’Grady v Northern Queensland Company Limited (1990) 169 CLR 356

PMT Partners Pty Limited (in Liquidation) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 301

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

Weigand v Comcare (2002) 72 ALD 795

Comcare v Sahu-Kahn (2007) 156 FCR 536

Comcare v Canute (2005) 148 FCR 232

REASONS FOR DECISION

23 April 2010 Mr S. Webb, Member
Dr M. Miller AO, Member   

1.      

Kristine Clement was employed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). In the course of her employment in the Foreign Trade Section of the ABS she reported on data security issues. She asserts that her supervisors reacted badly to flaws she discovered in the data security system and that she was harassed and bullied as a result. She lodged a claim for compensation relating to a psychological injury.[1] Comcare accepted the claim and paid compensation.[2] Subsequently,

Ms Clement’s employment with the ABS came to an end and her compensation payments ceased. Many years passed. Ms Clement made further claims for payment of compensation for incapacity and medical treatment expenses in relation to her accepted injury. Each of these 11 claims was rejected. Ms Clement is unhappy with this result and has applied for review.

[1] T9.

[2] T25; T65 and T66 refers.

2.      The issues for determination are:

(a)was Ms Clement incapacitated for work as a result of the psychological injury during any relevant period, and

(b)did she incur costs for medical treatment during any such period in relation to the injury?

If those questions are answered in the affirmative, Ms Clement will be entitled to compensation.

3.      As will appear, even though Comcare accepted liability for the psychological injury Ms Clement claimed, the main issue of dispute is whether Ms Clement suffered an injury.

4.      

Ms Clement gave…