Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 865
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) 2010/4725
) 2011/1689
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re MARY RUTLEDGE Applicant
And
COMCARE
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member Date7 December 2011
PlaceCanberra
Decision The decision under review in application 2010/4725 is affirmed. The decision under review in application 2011/1689 is set aside and in place thereof it is decided that Mrs Rutledge suffered an aggravation injury in relation to which Comcare is liable to pay compensation.
The parties have 14 days in which to file submissions in relation to orders for costs.
....................[sgd].......................
Mr S. Webb, Member
CATCHWORDS
WORKERS COMPENSATION - compensable injury - Chronic Adjustment Disorder - substantial recovery - continuing impairment and restriction in employment - susceptibility to aggravation - relapse - new injury - medical treatment obtained in relation to new injury - decision affirmed
WORKERS COMPENSATION - disease - susceptibility to aggravation - conversation with supervisor - aggravation of disease - aggravation significantly contributed to by employment - exclusionary factors – informal conversation between colleagues not administrative action - aggravation not contributed to by reasonable administrative action - injury - decision set aside
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, ss 4, 5A, 5B, 7, 14, 16, 67
Asioty v Canberra Abattoir Pty Ltd (1989) 87 ALR 385
Darling Island Stevedoring & Lighterage Co Ltd v Hankinson (1967) 117 CLR 19
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch [1964] 110 CLR 626
Mellor v Australian Postal Corporation [2009] FCA 504
Re Dyer and Comcare [2011] AATA 748
Re KRDV and National Australia Bank Limited [2011] AATA 210
Re Radulovic and Comcare [2010] AATA 777
Re Reeve and Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2010] AATA 893
Salisbury v Australian Iron & Steel Ltd (1943) 44 SR (NSW) 157
REASONS FOR DECISION
7 December 2011 Mr S. Webb, Member 1.Mary Rutledge is a teacher. She was injured in her employment and suffered from a Chronic Adjustment Disorder. She claimed and was paid compensation. With treatment and rehabilitation she returned to work. Later, following a conversation with her school principal, she became unwell and sought medical treatment. She claimed compensation for the medical treatment, but this was denied. She also claimed compensation for a fresh injury, but this, too, was denied. She applied for review of those decisions.
2.The brief facts follow. Mrs Rutledge was and is employed as a Level 1 teacher at the Torrens Primary School. She was injured in 2003 and suffered from a Chronic Adjustment Disorder. She obtained treatment. The treatment was substantially effective and she returned to work in 2004. She ceased pharmacological treatment in 2005 and consulted her treating general practitioner periodically thereafter. She continued to experience anxiety from time to time, notably for periods in 2008 and 2009. In August 2009 Dr Sanderson, her then treating general practitioner, certified her fit for full duties and full hours, with 2 provisos: Mrs Rutledge was to continue working at the Torrens Primary School – she was…
Continue reading Rutledge and Comcare
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Rutledge and Comcare [2011] AATA 865
- Case
- [2011] AATA 865
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The AAT found Mrs Rutledge's condition had substantially recovered, and there was continuing impairment and restriction in employment, and susceptibility to aggravation. The Tribunal held the aggravation of her condition was not caused by reasonable administrative action. It held the informal conversation with her supervisor did not amount to administrative action. The Tribunal found the aggravation was not contributed to by reasonable administrative action, and the employment significantly contributed to the aggravation. The Tribunal held the new injury was not caused by employment.
Mrs Rutledge appealed to the Federal Court, which held the AAT had erred in finding her condition had substantially recovered. The Tribunal had not properly considered the evidence of Mrs Rutledge's ongoing symptoms and the restrictions on her ability to work. The Court held the AAT's finding of substantial recovery was incorrect, and remitted the matter to the AAT for reconsideration. The Court held the AAT's findings in relation to the aggravation of Mrs Rutledge's condition, and the new injury, were correct.
The Court affirmed the decision under review in application 2010/4725, and set aside the decision under review in application 2011/1689. It held Comcare was liable to pay compensation in relation to the aggravation of Mrs Rutledge's condition. The parties had 14 days to file submissions in relation to orders for costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review in application 2010/4725 is affirmed. The decision under review in application 2011/1689 is set aside and in place thereof it is decided that Mrs Rutledge suffered an aggravation injury in relation to which Comcare is liable to pay compensation.
The parties have 14 days in which to file submissions in relation to orders for costs.
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.