Slaters and Telstra Corporation Ltd - [2002] AATA 75

CATCHWORDS – COMPENSATION – Major Depressive Disorder – Adjustment Disorder – whether applicant has a Major Depressive Disorder, and if so, whether it arose out of, or in the course of, his employment – whether applicant has an Adjustment Disorder, and if so, whether it arose out of, or in the course of, his employment – whether ongoing – applicant entitled to compensation for a specified period – decision set aside

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 Part II, Part VIIIB, ss. 4, 14, 19, 24

Rodriguez v Telstra Corporation Limited [1999] FCA 1400

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 75

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL     )
  )          Q1999/809
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION     )

ReDAVID McCAULEY SALTERS
Applicant

AndTELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal:                   Miss S A Forgie (Deputy President)
  Dr K P Kennedy, OBE (Member)
Date:  8 February, 2002
Place:  Brisbane

Decision:The Tribunal:

1.sets aside the decision of the respondent dated 9 June, 1999; and

2. substitute a decision that:
(a)the respondent is liable to pay compensation in accordance with the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in respect of Major Depressive Disorder from 15 April, 1998 to 13 December, 1999; and
(b)the applicant was incapacitated for work as a result of Major Depressive Disorder from 15 April, 1998 to 13 December, 1999.
S A FORGIE
Deputy President

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 27 July, 1999, the applicant, Mr David McCauley Salters, applied for review of a reviewable decision of the respondent, Telstra Corporation Limited ("Telstra") dated 9 June, 1999. That reviewable decision affirmed an earlier decision dated 3 March, 1999 that Telstra was not liable to pay Mr Salters compensation under s. 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("SRC Act") in respect of major depression.

At the hearing, Mr Bolton of counsel represented Mr Salters and Mr Dickson of counsel represented Telstra. The documents lodged pursuant to s. 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("T documents") were admitted in evidence together with other material to which we will refer in the course of these reasons. Oral evidence was given by Mr Salters in support of his case together with Mrs Annette Salters, Dr Ivan Holm, Dr Michael Gillman, Mr Paul White and Mr Garry Rogers. Dr Martin Nothling, Mr Noel Massy, Mr Paul Witzeman, Dr Roger Allen and Dr Ian Low gave evidence in support of Telstra's case.

THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether the applicant suffers from a Major Depressive Disorder and, if so, whether it or they arose out of, or in the course of, his employment with Telstra.

BACKGROUND

On the basis of the evidence, we find that Mr Salters was born on 12 September, 1964 and has three sisters and a brother. He came to Australia with his family in 1973 and continued his schooling. After leaving school, he was employed for some two years as a shop assistant in a supermarket and then became a storeman. After spending twelve years in two positions…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Slaters and Telstra Corporation Ltd 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: [2002] AATA 75
Decision Date: 8 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, David McCauley Salters, brought an appeal against a decision by Telstra Corporation Limited that they were not liable to pay compensation under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 for a Major Depressive Disorder which Mr Salters suffered from. The appeal was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal found that Mr Salters suffered from a Major Depressive Disorder in April 1998 and that it arose out of, or in the course of, his employment with Telstra. The Tribunal also found that, by 13 December 1999, Mr Salters had ceased to suffer from a Major Depressive Disorder and had begun to suffer from an Adjustment Disorder. The Tribunal found that the Adjustment Disorder was not caused by, or arose out of, his employment with Telstra. The Tribunal set aside the decision of Telstra and substituted a decision that they were liable to pay compensation in respect of the Major Depressive Disorder from 15 April 1998 to 13 December 1999 and that Mr Salters was incapacitated for work as a result of Major Depressive Disorder from 15 April 1998 to 13 December 1999.

Orders