Re Wiegand and Comcare

Case [2005] AATA 780

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal
 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 780

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No S2002/458

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re JOACHIM WIEGAND

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President D G Jarvis

Date12 August 2005

PlaceAdelaide

Decision

The decision under review is affirmed.

D G Jarvis
  (Signed)
  Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – Australian Tax Office employee – major depressive disorder – whether contributed to in a material degree by employment – alternative diagnosis of paranoid personality disorder not accepted – whether perceived situations or events actually happened – meaning of “injury” – failure to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit – meaning of “benefit” – condition due to combination of employment related factors and excepted factors – decision under review affirmed.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4(1) and 14

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth)

Wiegand v Comcare (2002) 72 ALD 795

Lees v Comcare (1999) 56 ALD 84

Hart v Comcare [2005] FCAFC 16

Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FCR 316

Suters v Australian Postal Corporation (1992) 28 ALD 320

Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626

Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth (1985) 9 FCR 36

Re Sutherland and Comcare [1996] AATA; 16 December 1996

Trewin v Comcare (1998) 84 FCR 171

Re Fitzgerald and Comcare [1995] AATA 10514; 6 November 1995

Re Parker and Comcare [1996] AATA 11298; 11 October 1996

REASONS FOR DECISION

12 August 2005   Deputy President D G Jarvis

1.      The applicant, Joachim Wiegand, was employed by the Australian Taxation Office (“ATO”) from May 1986 until January 1998.  By a claim form dated 12 May 1998, Mr Wiegand indicated that he wished to claim benefits under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“SRC Act”). He attached to the claim form a medical certificate from a psychiatrist, Dr David Coyte, which contained a diagnosis of major depression, with a stated date of injury described as approximately January 1998.

2.      The claim form requested the claimant to describe in detail what events contributed to the asserted injury or illness.  Mr Wiegand responded: “defamation & victimisation in 1990.  ongoing discrimination etc.  Lodged various grievances which all ended as white-wash.  Asked Comcare for help – in vain”.  I will refer later in these reasons to a number of situations or events which occurred between 1986 and 1997 in the course of Mr Wiegand’s employment with the ATO, and which he asserts resulted in his suffering depression.

3. On 10 June 1998 an officer of Comcare determined that Comcare was not liable to pay compensation under the SRC Act. That decision was confirmed by a review officer on 22 September 1998.

4.      Mr Wiegand applied to this Tribunal for review of the decision by the review officer.  In a decision made on 28 June 2002, Senior Member Kiosoglous and Dr JTB Linn, Member, affirmed the decision under review.

5. Mr Wiegand then appealed to the Federal Court pursuant…

Continue reading Re Wiegand and Comcare

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Wiegand and Comcare [2005] AATA 780
Case
[2005] AATA 780
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The decision in Re Wiegand and Comcare was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia. The applicant, Mr Wiegand, sought compensation for a major depressive disorder he claimed was contributed to in a material degree by his employment with the Australian Tax Office. Comcare, the respondent, rejected the claim. The dispute was whether the depressive disorder was caused by employment-related factors and if it constituted an injury as defined by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

The primary legal issues were whether Mr Wiegand's employment contributed materially to his major depressive disorder, and if the alternative diagnosis of paranoid personality disorder could be accepted. Further, the court had to determine if the perceived situations or events were actual occurrences, and if the failure to obtain a promotion or transfer could be considered a benefit under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. The tribunal also considered the meaning of “injury” and “benefit” in this context.

The tribunal found that Mr Wiegand's major depressive disorder was due to a combination of employment-related factors and excepted factors, but not contributed to in a material degree by his employment. The alternative diagnosis of paranoid personality disorder was not accepted as it did not align with the evidence presented. The tribunal noted that the condition was not a result of actual events as perceived by Mr Wiegand, and that the failure to obtain a promotion or transfer did not amount to a benefit. The tribunal affirmed the decision under review, dismissing Mr Wiegand's claim for compensation.

The tribunal's decision was based on a careful analysis of the evidence and legal precedents, including cases such as Lees v Comcare and Hart v Comcare. The tribunal concluded that the condition did not meet the criteria for compensation as it was not solely caused by employment-related factors. The tribunal's reasoning was thorough, considering the nature of the depressive disorder, the role of perceived events, and the definition of "injury" and "benefit" under the relevant legislation.

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.