Legal Research
Cases
Stathopoulos and Comcare (Compensation)

Stathopoulos and Comcare (Compensation)

Case [2018] AATA 651 21 March 2018

Type to search within this case.

Stathopoulos and Comcare (Compensation) [2018] AATA 651 (21 March 2018)

Division:General Division
File Number: 2017/0982
Re:RHONDA STATHOPOULOS
APPLICANT

AndCOMCARE
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Deputy President S A Forgie
Date:21 March 2018
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal:

1.sets aside the reviewable decision of the respondent dated 3 January 2017; and
2.substitutes a decision that the applicant’s injury was sustained in the course of her employment within the meaning of s 6(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

.......................[sgd]................................................

Deputy President S A Forgie

COMPENSATION – injury sustained by employee while walking through car park to work – car park used by employees of Department of Human Services – injury arises out of, or in the course of, employment – reviewable decision set aside and substituted

LEGISLATION

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s 15AB

Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 6, 14

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2006

Workers’ Compensation Act 1926 (NSW)

CASES

Comcare v Mather and Mitchell [1995] FCA 1216; (1995) 56 FCR 456; 37 ALD 463; 21 AAR 297

Comcare v O’Dea [2009] AATA 499

Comcare v PVYW [2013] HCA 41; [2013] HCA 41; (2013) 250 CLR 246; 303 ALR 1; 136 ALD 1

Danvers v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1969] HCA 64; (1969) 122 CLR 529

Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch [1964] HCA 34; (1964) 110 CLR 626
Foster v Edwin Penfold & Co Limited 27 BWCC 240

Grech v Commonwealth of Australia 1 DCR (NSW) 108

Gregory v Comcare (1997) 72 FCR 196

Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd [1992] HCA 21; (1992) 173 CLR 473; 106 ALR 611

Humphrey Earl v Speechley [1951] HCA 75; (1951) 84 CLR 126

John Stewart and Son Ltd v Longhurst 10 BWCC 266

Kavanagh v The Commonwealth [1960] HCA 25; (1960) 103 CLR 547

Learmonth v H&A Bag Company [1944] WCR 131

M Ayling v Wende Bros [1962] WCBD (WA) 193

Mendez v Telstra Corporation [1998] NSWSC 504; (1998) 147 FLR 394

Re Barnard and Australia Post Corporation [2008] AATA 507

Re Ford and Comcare [2018] AATA

Re Perera and Comcare [2009] AATA 499

Roncevich v Repatriation Commission [2005] HCA 40; (2005) 222 CLR 115; 218 ALR 733; 41 AAR 355; 85 ALD 257

Telstra v Bowden [2012] FCA 576; (2012) 206 FCR 207; 292 ALR 61; 129 ALD 520

The Star Pty Ltd v Mitchison [2017] NSWCA 149

Stewart v Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board [1932] HCA 45; (1932) 48 CLR 216

Weaver v Tredegar Iron and Coal Co Ltd [1940] 3 All ER 157

Sparey v Bath Rural 24 BWCC 414

Victorian Workcover Authority v Jones Lang Lasalle (Vic) Pty Limited [2012] VSC 41

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, 1999, reprinted 2004, Chambers

Explanatory Memorandum to…

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 Stathopoulos and Comcare (Compensation)

Details

AGLC: Stathopoulos and Comcare (Compensation) [2018] AATA 651
Case: [2018] AATA 651
Decision Date: 21 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by Mr. Stathopoulos against a decision by Comcare. The dispute centred on Comcare's refusal to accept liability for a psychological injury allegedly sustained by Mr. Stathopoulos during his employment with the Australian Federal Police. Mr. Stathopoulos sought compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (the SRC Act).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Stathopoulos's condition constituted an "injury" as defined by section 5A of the SRC Act, specifically whether it was a "disease suffered by the employee as a result of, or has become aggravated, or has been made worse or more difficult to treat, by the employment". The Tribunal was required to determine if the evidence established that Mr. Stathopoulos's psychological condition was a consequence of his employment, or if it was exacerbated by it, to the extent that it qualified for compensation under the Act.

Deputy S A Forgie P considered the evidence presented, including medical reports and Mr. Stathopoulos's own testimony, in light of the statutory definition of injury. The Tribunal applied the principles established in cases concerning the causation of psychological injury in the workplace, focusing on whether the employment was a significant contributing factor to the condition. The Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish the necessary causal link between Mr. Stathopoulos's employment and his psychological condition, nor did it demonstrate that the employment had aggravated or worsened an existing condition to the requisite degree.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decision, dismissing Mr. Stathopoulos's application for compensation.

Orders