Sami and Telstra Corporation Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 30 min read

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2012] AATA 41

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)       Nos.  2009/6004, 2010/5573

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

)                 and 2011/0497

Re Ahmad Sami

Applicant

And

Telstra Corporation Limited

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President J W Constance

Date27 January 2012

PlaceMelbourne

Decision

Application 2009/6004

The reviewable decision made 19 November 2009 is set aside and in substitution it is decided that Telstra is liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury, being post-traumatic stress disorder, suffered by Mr Sami on 12 August 2009.

Application 2010/5573

The reviewable decision made 20 December 2010 is set aside and in substitution it is decided that Telstra is liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury, being an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, suffered by Mr Sami on 1 June 2009.

Application 2011/0497

The reviewable decision made 4 February 2011 is affirmed.

......(sgd J W Constance).......

Deputy President

5.      For the reasons which follow the decisions in applications 2009/6004 and 2010/5573 will be set aside and in substitution it will be decided in each case that Telstra is liable to compensate Mr Sami in respect of each of the injuries.  The decision in application 2011/0497 will be affirmed.

BACKGROUND

6.      Unless otherwise stated the findings of fact made in these Reasons are made on the basis of the evidence of Mr Sami.  I am satisfied of the facts found on the balance of probabilities.

7.      Mr Sami is 50 years old.  He commenced employment by Telstra in 1989 and worked for the company continuously until he was made redundant on 1 October 2009.  Initially he was employed as an Assistant Technician; later he was promoted to Communications Technician.  His work involved the maintenance of Telstra’s main distribution frame.

8.      In 1995 Mr Sami injured his right knee and in 2002 he injured his right ankle and right knee.  He suffered an injury to his back in 2006 which required surgery.  In 2008 he suffered a further injury to his right knee.   All these injuries occurred while he was at work.

9.      In February 2009 Mr Sami underwent an arthroscopy of his right knee but he continued to experience pain in the knee.  The pain has worsened and his change in gait has affected his left knee.  He has continued also to experience pain from his back injury.

10.     On 27 March 2008 Mr Sami was driving a Telstra van in the course of his duties in suburban Melbourne.  As he was driving he was approached by a man and a woman who were being chased by a man wielding a knife.  The man and the woman jumped into the van and yelled at Mr Sami urging him to drive off quickly.  As Mr Sami was driving around a traffic island the door came open and both passengers were thrown from the van.  Mr Sami saw that the male had hit his head on a sign-post and was bleeding profusely. Mr Sami thought that the passenger was…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sami and Telstra Corporation Limited and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] AATA 41
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sami and Telstra Corporation Limited, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dealt with a dispute involving claims for workers' compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The applicant, Mr Sami, sought compensation for injuries sustained while employed by Telstra, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The court was required to determine whether these conditions qualified as compensable injuries and whether the administrative decisions made by Telstra in denying compensation were legally sound.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The court had to establish whether Mr Sami's mental health conditions met the criteria for compensable injuries under the Act and whether Telstra's handling of the compensation claim was reasonable. The court also needed to assess if the decisions made by Telstra in denying the claims were administratively lawful and whether they were made in a reasonable manner.

The court found that Mr Sami's post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder with depressed mood were indeed compensable injuries under the Act. It was determined that Telstra had not acted in a reasonable manner when it denied the claims, leading to the conclusion that the administrative decisions were flawed. Consequently, the court set aside the decisions made on 19 November 2009 and 20 December 2010, affirming that Telstra was liable for compensation regarding the respective injuries. The decision made on 4 February 2011 was upheld as it had correctly acknowledged Telstra's liability for the injuries sustained by Mr Sami.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 2009/6004

The reviewable decision made 19 November 2009 is set aside and in substitution it is decided that Telstra is liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury, being post-traumatic stress disorder, suffered by Mr Sami on 12 August 2009.

Application 2010/5573

The reviewable decision made 20 December 2010 is set aside and in substitution it is decided that Telstra is liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury, being an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, suffered by Mr Sami on 1 June 2009.

Application 2011/0497

The reviewable decision made 4 February 2011 is affirmed.

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.