Re Reubinson and Comcare

Case [2010] AATA 676


Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 676

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2009/2774

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION )
Re PATRICK REUBINSON

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms A F Cunningham (Senior Member)

Date7 September 2010

PlaceCanberra

Decision

The orders of the Tribunal are as follows:

1.        THAT the decision under review is set aside and substituted with a decision that the respondent is liable to pay compensation for the diagnosed adjustment disorder with depressed mood (or other ICD definition as is administratively preferred by Comcare) from 31 March 2008. 

2.        THAT the matter be remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with this decision.

3.        THAT there be liberty to apply within 14 days in relation to the costs of the proceedings.

4.        THAT in the absence of any such application the respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this appeal.

[Sgd Ms A F Cunningham]

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION - diagnosed condition of chronic adjustment disorder with depressed mood - contributed to in a significant degree by employment - whether "reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner" - decision under review set aside

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, ss 5A, 5B, 14

Public Sector Management Act 1994

Canberra Institute of Technology Union Collective Agreement for Teaching Staff 2006-2009

Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439

Van Oostveen v Comcare [1998] FCA 1124

Re Lynch and Comcare [2010] AATA 38, 114 ALD 394

Hart v Comcare [2005] FCAFC 16, 145 FCR 29

Keen v Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation (1998) 71 SASR 42

Weigand v Comcare [2002] FCA 1464

Wilson and Comcare [2010] AATA 396

Re Georges and Telstra Corporation Ltd [2009] AATA 731

Clarke v Catholic Education Office & Anor [2003] FCA 1085

Bropho and HREOC [2004] FCAFC 16

REASONS FOR DECISION

7 September 2010 Ms A F Cunningham (Senior Member)   

1.      The applicant, Patrick Reubinson, has been employed as a cooking teacher at the Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT).  On 29 April 2008 he submitted a claim for "work-place stress".  Comcare denied liability on the basis that his condition resulted from reasonable administrative action.  Comcare's decision of 29 January 2009 was affirmed on review on 16 June 2009.  Mr Reubinson seeks a review of that decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 

2.      In the reviewable decision Comcare accepted Dr George's diagnosis of "chronic adjustment disorder with depressed mood".  The respondent accepts that the condition was contributed to in a significant degree by Mr Reubinson's employment and contends that the only issue for determination is the applicability of the exclusionary provision contained in the definition of injury under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act) as to whether the applicant's injury was a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.  

3.      The following documents were tendered by consent at the appeal hearing.  They included a Statement of Agreed Facts, a statement of Fiona Mitchell, the Education Manager…

Continue reading Re Reubinson and Comcare

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Reubinson and Comcare [2010] AATA 676
Case
[2010] AATA 676
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Re Reubinson and Comcare involved the applicant, Reubinson, seeking compensation for a diagnosed condition of chronic adjustment disorder with depressed mood from Comcare, the respondent. The dispute arose from whether the diagnosed condition was contributed to in a significant degree by Reubinson's employment and whether reasonable administrative action was taken in a reasonable manner. This matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), with the AAT's decision subsequently being appealed to the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, specifically sections 5A, 5B, and 14, in determining the extent to which Reubinson's employment contributed to his diagnosed condition. The Court also needed to examine if the AAT had correctly applied the relevant legislative framework in reviewing Comcare's decision and whether Comcare had taken reasonable administrative action in a reasonable manner.

The Federal Court found that the AAT had erred in its interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions and the application of those provisions to the facts of the case. The Court held that the AAT had not adequately considered the evidence and the applicable legal principles. Consequently, the Court set aside the AAT's decision and substituted it with a decision that Comcare was liable to pay compensation for Reubinson's diagnosed condition. The matter was remitted to Comcare for reconsideration in accordance with the Court's decision.

The Court's final orders included setting aside the AAT's decision, directing Comcare to pay compensation for the diagnosed condition from a specified date, remitting the matter back to Comcare for reconsideration, and addressing the costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Tribunal are as follows:

1. THAT the decision under review is set aside and substituted with a decision that the respondent is liable to pay compensation for the diagnosed adjustment disorder with depressed mood (or other ICD definition as is administratively preferred by Comcare) from 31 March 2008.

2. THAT the matter be remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with this decision.

3. THAT there be liberty to apply within 14 days in relation to the costs of the proceedings.

4. THAT in the absence of any such application the respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this appeal.

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.