Re Yu and Comcare

Case [2010] AATA 960

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 960

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2009/4031

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION )
Re JING YU

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member

Date1 December 2010

PlaceCanberra

Decision

The decision under review is set aside and in place thereof the Tribunal decides that Ms Yu’s claimed injury is not the result of reasonable administrative action undertaken in a reasonable manner. Ms Yu is entitled to compensation in relation to the injury with a deemed injury date of 4 March 2008.

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

Mr S. Webb, Member

CATCHWORDS

WORKERS COMPENSATION - psychological injury claimed - initial acceptance of liability overturned on reconsideration - administrative actions not reasonable - claimed injury not excluded - decision set aside

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 s5A, 5B, 7(4), 14

Public Sector Management Act 1994 (ACT)

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

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259

Re Georges and Telstra Corporation Ltd [2009] AATA 731

Re Gilbert and Comcare [2009] AATA 224

Re Inglis and Comcare (1997) 49 ALD 183

Re Radulovic and Comcare [2010] AATA 777

Re von Stieglitz and Comcare [2010] AATA 263

Re Xirakis and Comcare [2007] AATA 1817

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 December 2010 Mr S. Webb, Member         

1.      Jing Yu is a teacher. In the course of her employment she was required to participate in school-based administrative processes. She suffered an adjustment reaction and claimed compensation. Initially, Comcare determined to accept her claim. Some time later the ACT Department of Education and Training asked Comcare to reconsider the determination and to grant an extension of time in which to submit additional information. This was done. Subsequently, Comcare decided to set aside the determination to accept liability for Ms Yu’s claimed injury. Ms Yu is not happy with that decision and applied for review.

2.      At the outset of the hearing I was informed that there is no dispute that Ms Yu’s employment significantly contributed to cause the adjustment disorder, the ‘disease’,[1] Ms Yu claimed as an injury, and that the date of the injury is deemed to be 4 March 2008.[2] On the evidence before me these conclusions are correct, and I will proceed on that basis. The only issue in dispute is whether the disease is an ‘injury’[3] for the purposes of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act).

3.      In Comcare’s submission the disease is not an ‘injury’ because it is the result of ‘reasonable administrative action undertaken in a reasonable manner’ in respect of Ms Yu’s employment. Comcare asserts that administrative actions taken in relation to Ms Yu’s participation in a ‘Pathways to Improvement’ process were reasonable administrative actions and these actions were undertaken in a…

Continue reading Re Yu and Comcare

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Yu and Comcare [2010] AATA 960
Case
[2010] AATA 960
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Yu and Comcare involves a dispute over workers' compensation for a psychological injury. The matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and subsequently, the Federal Court. The primary issue before the court was whether the administrative actions taken by the respondent, Comcare, were reasonable and if the injury sustained by the applicant, Ms Yu, was the result of such actions. The court was also required to determine if the claimed injury fell within the exclusions under the relevant legislation.

In considering these issues, the court noted that the Tribunal had initially accepted the claim but later overturned its decision. The court found that the Tribunal had erred in its consideration of whether the administrative actions were reasonable and in its assessment of whether the injury was the result of such actions. The court held that the Tribunal did not sufficiently consider the legislative criteria for determining reasonableness and failed to apply the correct legal principles. As a result, the decision was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to find that Ms Yu's claimed injury was not the result of reasonable administrative action undertaken in a reasonable manner.

The court further found that the claimed injury was not excluded under the legislation. The Tribunal was directed to determine Ms Yu's entitlement to compensation in relation to the injury, with a deemed injury date of 4 March 2008. The decision highlights the importance of properly applying the relevant legislative criteria when assessing claims for workers' compensation, particularly in relation to psychological injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is set aside and in place thereof the Tribunal decides that Ms Yu’s claimed injury is not the result of reasonable administrative action undertaken in a reasonable manner. Ms Yu is entitled to compensation in relation to the injury with a deemed injury date of 4 March 2008.

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.