Spaul and Comcare - [2006] AATA 915

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 915
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No A2004/389

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) A2006/73

Re FRANK SPAUL

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal J.W. Constance, Senior Member
Date 27 October 2006
Place Canberra

Decision
1.   In matter A2004/389 the decision of Comcare made 13 December 2004 is set aside and in substitution it is decided that:

a)    Comcare is liable to pay compensation to Mr Spaul in accordance with the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) in respect of an injury, being an Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood suffered on 20 November 2003;

b) the injury has resulted in a 10% whole person permanent impairment of Mr Spaul, and Comcare is liable to pay compensation to Mr Spaul in accordance with the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).

2.   In matter A2006/73 the decision of Comcare made 31 March 2006 is set aside and in substitution it is decided that Comcare is liable to pay compensation to Mr Spaul in accordance with the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) in respect of an injury being an aggravation of an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood suffered in the period July 2004 to September 2004 inclusive.

3.   Each party has liberty to apply for a direction in relation to the costs of these proceedings but if no such application is made within 14 days of the date of this decision the costs of these proceedings incurred by Mr Spaul shall be paid by Comcare.

..............................................
J.W. Constance, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood – Material contribution of employment – Reasonable disciplinary action – Failure to obtain a benefit – Permanent impairment – Degree of impairment.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4, 14, 16, 24
Hart v Comcare (2005) 145 FCR 358
Commissioner for the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation of Commonwealth Employees v Chenhall (1992) 37 FCR 75
Trewin v Comcare (1998) 84 FCR 171
Re Patrick and Comcare (1997) AATA 11609
REASONS FOR DECISION

27 October 2006

J.W. Constance, Senior Member

INTRODUCTION
1. In the past Mr Spaul enjoyed a highly successful career in the Australian Public Service. Amongst his many achievements he saved the Health Insurance Commission millions of dollars in workers compensation premiums during the time he worked in the compensation area of the Personnel Management Division. Unfortunately, it appears that some in the Commission decided that Mr Spaul had ceased to be a valued employee. His employment was terminated in September 2004.
2. As a result of the treatment he received whilst employed by the Commission and in part as a result of the termination of his employment, Mr Spaul developed a chronic condition of Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Comcare has refused three claims for compensation and Mr Spaul has sought a review of these decisions.
3.…

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 Spaul and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Spaul and Comcare [2006] AATA 915
Case: [2006] AATA 915
Decision Date: 27 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Spaul brought an appeal against Comcare, the respondent, seeking compensation for injuries he claimed to have suffered at work. The appeal was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Mr Spaul argued that he had sustained an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood due to his employment and that this condition had resulted in a permanent impairment. Comcare contended that the injury was not caused by Mr Spaul's employment and that it had taken all reasonable steps to manage his condition.

The court was required to determine whether Mr Spaul's employment contributed materially to his adjustment disorder and if the condition had resulted in a permanent impairment. The court also needed to consider whether Comcare had taken reasonable steps to manage the condition and whether it had failed to obtain a benefit for Mr Spaul. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) and relevant case law to address these issues.

The court found that Mr Spaul's employment did contribute materially to his adjustment disorder, and it had resulted in a 10% whole person permanent impairment. The court held that Comcare was liable to pay compensation for the injury and the impairment. The court also found that Comcare had taken reasonable disciplinary action in managing Mr Spaul's condition and that it had not failed to obtain a benefit for him. The court set aside the previous decisions of Comcare and ordered that Comcare pay compensation to Mr Spaul in accordance with the Act.

The court further found that Mr Spaul had suffered an aggravation of his adjustment disorder between July 2004 and September 2004, and Comcare was liable to pay compensation for this injury. The court ordered that the costs of the proceedings incurred by Mr Spaul would be paid by Comcare unless an application for a direction in relation to the costs was made within 14 days of the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In matter A2004/389 the decision of Comcare made 13 December 2004 is set aside and in substitution it is decided that:

a) Comcare is liable to pay compensation to Mr Spaul in accordance with the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) in respect of an injury, being an Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood suffered on 20 November 2003;

b) the injury has resulted in a 10% whole person permanent impairment of Mr Spaul, and Comcare is liable to pay compensation to Mr Spaul in accordance with the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).

2. In matter A2006/73 the decision of Comcare made 31 March 2006 is set aside and in substitution it is decided that Comcare is liable to pay compensation to Mr Spaul in accordance with the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) in respect of an injury being an aggravation of an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood suffered in the period July 2004 to September 2004 inclusive.

3. Each party has liberty to apply for a direction in relation to the costs of these proceedings but if no such application is made within 14 days of the date of this decision the costs of these proceedings incurred by Mr Spaul shall be paid by Comcare.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		) A2006/73
Re		FRANK SPAUL