RLDZ and Comcare (Compensation) - [2015] AATA 735

RLDZ and Comcare (Compensation) [2015] AATA 735 (21 September 2015)

Division

GENERAL DIVISION

File number

2014/4638

RLDZ

APPLICANT

And

Comcare

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal
Dr James Popple, Senior Member

Date 21 September 2015

Place Canberra
Comcare’s decision on 11 July 2014 is affirmed.
...............................[sgd].........................................
James Popple, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION — Commonwealth employees — Applicant suffered psychological condition — whether condition an injury — whether condition the result of reasonable administrative action — applicant claims to have suffered injury during a meeting — applicant’s performance discussed at meeting — meeting was an administrative action — whether meeting conducted in a reasonable manner — decision affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, ss 5A, 14

CASES
Comcare v Martinez (No 2) (2013) 212 FCR 272
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve (2012) 199 FCR 463
Drenth v Comcare (2012) 128 ALD 1
Hart v Comcare (2005) 145 FCR 29
Lim and Comcare [2015] AATA 189

REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr James Popple, Senior Member
21 September 2015
Summary

I affirm Comcare’s decision to deny the applicant compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act). The applicant suffered a psychological condition which arose out of, or in the course of, his employment with the University of Canberra (the University). But one cause of the condition was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner by the University in respect of the applicant’s employment. Accordingly, the condition is not an injury for the purposes of s 5A of the SRC Act, and Comcare is not liable to pay compensation.
Background
“RLDZ” (the applicant) was employed by the University. On 10 December 2013, he made a claim for workers’ compensation for “major depressive disorder with co-morbid anxiety as a result of workplace stressors”. On 21 February 2014, Comcare disallowed his claim. Comcare accepted that the applicant had suffered from a “major depressive disorder, single episode”, which was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment with the University. But Comcare denied that it was liable to pay compensation under s 14 of the SRC Act. Comcare said that the applicant’s condition was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment and, therefore, was excluded from the definition of “injury” in s 5A of the SRC Act.
On 28 March 2014, the applicant requested a reconsideration of that determination. On 11 July 2014, Comcare affirmed its determination.
On 28 September 2014, the applicant applied to the Tribunal, under s 64 of the SRC Act, for review of that decision.
Decision under review
The decision under review is Comcare’s decision on 11 July 2014 to affirm its determination that Comcare is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant.
Issue
The issue in this review is whether the applicant’s condition was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment. If it was, it is excluded from the definition…

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 RLDZ and Comcare (Compensation)

Details

AGLC: RLDZ and Comcare (Compensation) [2015] AATA 735
Case: [2015] AATA 735
Decision Date: 21 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, an employee, sought a review of Comcare's decision not to compensate him for a psychological condition he claimed resulted from a meeting with his superiors. The case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was a review of Comcare's decision to affirm its earlier determination that it was not liable to pay compensation to the applicant. The central issue was whether the applicant's condition was an injury under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC Act), considering that it was allegedly caused by reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. If it was such an injury, Comcare would not be liable for compensation; if not, Comcare might be liable.

The court had to determine whether the meeting in question constituted a reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, as defined by s 5A of the SRC Act. The Tribunal considered previous Federal Court decisions, which outlined the criteria for reasonable administrative action. The meeting was held to discuss the applicant's performance, and Comcare argued that it was an administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. The Tribunal assessed the facts of the case to decide whether the meeting met the criteria for reasonable administrative action, focusing on the objective nature of the decision and whether the action could be seen as reasonable given the circumstances.

After reviewing the evidence and applying the criteria, the Tribunal found that the meeting was indeed a reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's condition was excluded from the definition of "injury" under the SRC Act. Consequently, Comcare's decision to not pay compensation to the applicant was affirmed. The Tribunal did not find any error in Comcare's decision, and the review application was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

On 28 September 2014, the applicant applied to the Tribunal, under s 64 of the SRC Act, for review of that decision.Decision under review The decision under review is Comcare’s decision on 11 July 2014 to affirm its determination that Comcare is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant.Issue The issue in this review is whether the applicant’s condition was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment. If it was, it is excluded from the definition of “injury” in s 5A of the SRC Act, and Comcare is not liable to pay the applicant compensation. If it was not, Comcare may be liable to pay compensation.Reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner Under s 14 of the SRC Act, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment. Section 5A(1) defines “injury”, and provides that it “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”. In Lim and Comcare, I considered the guidance in several decisions of the Federal Court about what is a reasonable administrative action, and how to decide whether such an action is taken in a reasonable manner.[1] I then summarized the principles enunciated in those decisions, noting that there was some overlap between those summary points:[1] [2015] AATA 189 at [8]–[12].· The following are administrative actions:oan action with respect to the employee as employee;oan action with respect to the employment relationship that the particular employee has with the employer; andotaking steps under a contract of employment.· The following are not administrative actions:oan action with respect to the duties that an employee is employed to carry out;odefining or delimiting or supervising the employment, job or task entrusted to an employee for them to perform;ogiving directions to them as to how and when they are to perform it; andomatters of general administration, management and the implementation of policy, even if they affect the employment of employees.· Whether a reasonable administrative action was taken in a reasonable manner:ois an objective decision;odepends upon the facts of the case; andois not established solely on the basis of the impact on the employee.· There may be more than one way of doing things “reasonably”. It does not matter that the thing could have been done more reasonably.· If only one cause of a condition satisfies the exclusion in s 5A, the exclusion applies and the condition is not an “injury”. This is so, even if the condition had many separate causes.[2][2] [2015] AATA 189 at [13]. On 28 November 2013, the applicant met at the University with his manager and his manager’s manager.[3] What transpired at that meeting (the meeting) is crucial to this review. The applicant says that the meeting was a cause of his condition. Comcare concedes that it was, but says that the meeting was a reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the applicant’s employment. Therefore, Comcare says, the applicant’s condition is excluded from the definition of “injury” in s 5A of the SRC Act.[3] For simplicity, I refer to these two people as the applicant’s manager and his manager’s manager throughout these reasons. Those titles reflect their roles in November 2013. The manager’s manager had previously been the applicant’s direct manager. After a restructure, in mid-October 2013 the manager took over that direct supervisory role, and the manager’s manager retained a supervisory role in relation to a team of people, including the applicant and his manager.Events before the meeting

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Division	GENERAL DIVISION
File number	2014/4638
RLDZ
APPLICANT
And	Comcare
RESPONDENT

Tribunal	Dr James Popple, Senior Member
Date	21 September 2015
Place	Canberra