Renouf and Comcare - [2004] AATA 525

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 525
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No D2003/2

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
)

Re RAYMOND RENOUF

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr RG Kenny, Member
Date25 May 2004
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and substitutes its decisions that:

(i) the respondent is liable to continue to pay compensation to the applicant for anxiety disorder/depression in accordance with section 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988;

(ii)     the applicant suffers from permanent impairment from anxiety disorder/depression which is causally related to his employment in accordance with section 24 of the Act;

(iii)    the matter of determining the degree of permanent impairment is remitted to the respondent; and

(iv)    the respondent is liable to pay the applicant's costs in accordance with the terms of the Practice Direction.

....................(Sgd).......................
RG Kenny
  Member

CATCHWORDS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – benefits and entitlements - applicant suffering from anxiety disorder/depression – condition initially caused by the applicant’s employment – whether liability for condition has ceased - temporary aggravation by factors external to workplace - material contribution from initial underlying condition - respondent liable to continue to pay compensation to the applicant for incapacity or impairment – applicant’s condition has resulted in a permanent impairment – assessment of level of impairment remitted
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 6, 14, 16, 19, 24, 27, 28
Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn [2003] FCA 318
Lees v Comcare (1999) 56 ALD 84
Re Carson and Telstra Corporation (2001) 33 AAR 351
Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 97 ALR 321
REASONS FOR DECISION

25 May 2004 Mr RG Kenny, Member

Background
1. Raymond Renouf (the applicant), who was born on 9 September 1953, was employed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) from April 1995 until March 1998 in Darwin as a Technical Officer Productions Operations (TOPO). On 24 October 1997, he lodged a claim for rehabilitation and compensation in respect of anxiety disorder/depression, alleging that this was related to aspects of his employment, in particular, a tripled workload and noisy and cramped conditions (T66). Initially, Comcare (the respondent) rejected his claim but, on 20 May 1998, accepted liability in accordance with section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) for the period from 8 September 1997 until 19 December 1997.
2. On 29 May 1998, the applicant lodged a further claim for depression/anxiety alleging that it was related to “harassment from employment” (T71). On 2 October 1998, the respondent rejected his claim and this was affirmed on 8 December 1998. However, that decision was revoked by the respondent on 19 July 1999 on the basis that the applicant was still suffering from the effects of the condition that he had from 8 September 1997 (T56). On 16 November 2001, the applicant lodged a claim for permanent impairment in accordance with section 24 of the Act (T31) and this was rejected by the respondent on 8…

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.

Continue reading Renouf and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Renouf and Comcare [2004] AATA 525
Case: [2004] AATA 525
Decision Date: 25 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Renouf, sought to have Comcare continue to pay compensation for anxiety disorder and depression, which had initially been caused by his employment. The dispute was heard and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The central legal issues were whether Comcare's liability to pay compensation had ceased due to the applicant's condition being temporarily aggravated by factors external to the workplace, and whether the initial underlying condition made a material contribution to the current condition. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the applicant's condition had resulted in permanent impairment.

The Tribunal concluded that Comcare remained liable to pay compensation for the applicant's anxiety disorder and depression. The condition, which was initially caused by the applicant's employment, continued to be a material contributing factor to his current state. The temporary aggravation by factors external to the workplace did not sever the causal link between the condition and the employment. The Tribunal also found that the applicant suffered from a permanent impairment due to his condition. However, the degree of this impairment needed to be assessed, and this matter was remitted to Comcare. The Tribunal ordered Comcare to continue paying compensation and to pay the applicant's costs as per the Practice Direction.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and substitutes its decisions that:

(i) the respondent is liable to continue to pay compensation to the applicant for anxiety disorder/depression in accordance with section 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988;

(ii) the applicant suffers from permanent impairment from anxiety disorder/depression which is causally related to his employment in accordance with section 24 of the Act;

(iii) the matter of determining the degree of permanent impairment is remitted to the respondent; and

(iv) the respondent is liable to pay the applicant's costs in accordance with the terms of the Practice Direction.

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		RAYMOND RENOUF