Robson v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission

The case of Robson v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission involved the applicant, who sought to have his psychological injuries assessed separately by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant argued that his two psychological injuries, which resulted in similar impairments, should be considered individually, rather than as a whole person impairment. The AAT had declined to assess the injuries separately, concluding that the applicant's overall condition reflected the whole person impairment. The applicant appealed this decision to the court.

The primary legal issue in the case was whether the AAT had used the correct approach in considering the effect of the applicant's injuries on his functional capacities. The court had to determine if the AAT had appropriately assessed the injuries by reference to the effect on the functional capacities of a normal healthy person, rather than the effect on the applicant's pre-existing capacities. This issue was influenced by previous High Court decisions in Canute v Comcare (2006) 226 CLR 535 and Fellowes v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (2009) 240 CLR 28, which emphasised the importance of assessing compensation for each injury individually.

In its decision, the court examined the statutory framework and the Guide to assessing impairment, highlighting the need for compliance with the statutory requirements of the SRC Act. The court referenced the High Court decisions in Canute and Fellowes, which underscored the necessity of assessing each injury individually, despite the use of whole person impairment percentages in the Guide. The court found that the AAT had not correctly applied the statutory principles in determining the effect of the applicant's injuries, as it had not properly considered the separate impairments resulting from each injury. Consequently, the court allowed the applicant's appeal, remitted the matter to the AAT for rehearing, and ordered the costs of the application.

The court's decision emphasised the importance of correctly applying statutory principles in workers' compensation cases, particularly in relation to the assessment of multiple injuries and the use of whole person impairment percentages. The case underscored the need for tribunals to assess each injury individually, focusing on the effect on a normal healthy person's functional capacities rather than the pre-existing capacities of the claimant.