SUMEI TANG and COMCARE

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 513

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2007/6145

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		SUMEI TANG

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal M D Allen, Senior Member
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member

Date9 July 2010

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is AFFIRMED.

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

M D Allen, Presiding Member  

8.      Dr Chung’s report continued:

“Diagnostically, I reviewed my diagnosis of Sumei to a major depression with psychotic features.  In the differential diagnosis, I included a schizo-affective disorder, depressed mood.

Sumei did attempt to return to work in early 2004, after finishing seeing me for the first time.  She was hospitalised on two occasions, once after taking an overdose of ten paracetamol.

In early July, Sumei was admitted to Rozelle Hospital under schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act and on discharge she was followed up by myself and the Canterbury Community Health Centre…

… I am extremely guarded about Sumei’s progress.  In particular I am concerned about her lack of insight into her condition and her refusal to take anti-psychotics.  Indeed she has been concealing the fact that she has not been taking her medication for several months.

Sumei is unable to accept a diagnosis of psychotic disorder, and spent several sessions attempting to recant information that she had previously given to me about her symptoms….”

9.      In these proceedings the Applicant rejected the diagnosis of Dr Chung and claimed that Dr Chung had misinterpreted what she had said to him.  Exhibits R7 and R8 are letters written by the Applicant to Dr Chung in which she refutes the information upon which he based his diagnosis.  Significantly, both letters request that Dr Chung not release any information about her without reference to her in the first instance.

10.     In evidence to the Tribunal Dr Brown stated that it is quite usual after someone recovers from a psychotic episode to deny it occurred.  Dr Chung was the Applicant’s treating psychiatrist at the time and we see no reason not to accept his opinion that in 2004 the Applicant suffered from a major depression with psychotic features.

11.     We are aware that Dr Greenway, psychiatrist, who undertook the care of the Applicant after her ceasing to attend Dr Chung, was of the opinion that the diagnosis of a psychotic disorder was open to question.  He did however diagnose an anxiety/depression.

12.     In a report dated 31 May 2005, Dr Greenway stated:

“2. The prognosis for Ms Tang’s condition is that there should be a slow and steady improvement. I suspect that there are certain things that she will not be able to deal with – specifically I do not see her as returning to Canberra.

3.  I would suggest that a start at a part-time level (perhaps 15 hours per week) would be appropriate.  As noted previously, I do not believe that she can work in Canberra.  Certainly the idea of Canberra at the moment generates a high level of…