Legal Research
Cases
Re von Stieglitz and Comcare

Re von Stieglitz and Comcare

Link copied

Case Copied 15 April 2010 58 min read

Contents

On this page

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION     [2010] AATA 263
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )
)          No 2008/5018

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re Katherine von Stieglitz

Applicant

And

Comcare

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member
Dr M Miller, Member
Date15 April 2010
PlaceCanberra

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
.......................[sgd].................
Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member
Dr M Miller AO, Member

but does not include a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee's employment.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) and without limiting that subsection, reasonable administrative action is taken to include the following:
(a) a reasonable appraisal of the employee's performance;
(b) a reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee's employment;
(c) a reasonable suspension action in respect of the employee's employment;
(d) a reasonable disciplinary action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee's employment;
(e) anything reasonable done in connection with an action mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d);
(f) anything reasonable done in connection with the employee's failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment.

5B Definition of disease
(1) In this Act:
disease means:
(a) an ailment suffered by an employee; …
that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee's
employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee.
(2) In determining whether an ailment or aggravation was contributed to, to a significant degree, by an employee's employment by the Commonwealth or
a licensee, the following matters may be taken into account:
(a) the duration of the employment;
   (b) the nature of, and particular tasks involved in, the employment;
   (c) any predisposition of the employee to the ailment or aggravation;
   (d) any activities of the employee not related to the employment;
   (e) any other matters affecting the employee's health.
This subsection does not limit the matters that may be taken into account.

(3) In this Act:
significant degree means a degree that is substantially more than material.

4 Interpretation
(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears …
ailment means any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development).

7 Provisions relating to diseases
(4) For the purposes of this Act, an employee shall be taken to have sustained an injury, being a disease, or an aggravation of a disease, on the day when:
(a) the employee first sought medical treatment for the disease, or aggravation; or
(b) the disease or aggravation resulted in the death of the employee or first resulted in the incapacity for work, or impairment of the employee;

whichever happens first.

14 Compensation for injuries
(1) Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re von Stieglitz and Comcare and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] AATA 263
Decision Date: 15 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an application by Mr von Stieglitz for review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that his claim for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) was not valid. The dispute centred on whether Mr von Stieglitz's employment had significantly contributed to his adjustment disorder, which he claimed constituted a 'disease' under the Act. The AAT had previously determined that the disease did not meet the criteria for compensation, and Mr von Stieglitz sought to overturn this decision in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues were whether Mr von Stieglitz had indeed suffered from a 'disease' as defined by the Act, and if his employment had made a significant contribution to this condition. The court had to consider the statutory definition of 'disease', the requirement for a significant contribution by employment, and the validity of the AAT's decision-making process, particularly in light of the appointment of an independent investigator to assess Mr von Stieglitz's claims. It was necessary to establish whether the AAT had exercised its powers reasonably and in accordance with the law.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine that 'disease' under the Act required some form of identifiable physiological change, which was satisfied in this case by the adjustment disorder. The court also held that Mr von Stieglitz's employment had made a significant contribution to his condition. The court further found that the decision of the AAT was not flawed by any procedural unfairness, particularly regarding the appointment of the independent investigator. The court concluded that the AAT had acted within its authority and correctly applied the law.

The court affirmed the AAT's decision, dismissing Mr von Stieglitz's appeal. Consequently, his claim for compensation was not upheld, and the decision under review remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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		Katherine von Stieglitz