Szajna v Australian Postal Corporation

In the case of Szajna v Australian Postal Corporation, the Full Bench of the Federal Court was asked to determine whether the Full Bench of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) erred in its decision that the sudden cardiac event experienced by the deceased, Mr Szajna, was not an injury within the meaning of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The consequence of this was that the AAT affirmed the respondent’s decision to deny the applicant compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Full Bench of the Federal Court found that the AAT did indeed make an error of law in its reasoning and allowed the appeal. The Full Bench found that the AAT had misconstrued the term "injury" within s 5A(1) of the SRC Act by excluding the ventricular fibrillation suffered by Mr Szajna from the concept of "injury" on the basis that it was the inevitable consequence of his underlying coronary artery disease. The Full Bench set aside the AAT’s decision and remitted the case to the AAT to be heard and decided again.

The Full Bench of the Federal Court held that the AAT had misconstrued the term "injury" within s 5A(1) of the SRC Act. The AAT had concluded that the ventricular fibrillation suffered by Mr Szajna was not an injury because it was the inevitable consequence of his underlying coronary artery disease. The Full Bench found that this conclusion was an error of law because it imposed a principle of law that does not exist. The Full Bench held that the AAT was entitled to consider the inevitability of the ventricular fibrillation as a factor in determining whether it was an injury, but it was not entitled to conclude that it was not an injury solely on the basis of its inevitability. The Full Bench found that the AAT’s reasoning was flawed because it did not consider the possibility that the ventricular fibrillation could have been caused by factors other than the underlying disease. The Full Bench also found that the AAT had not properly considered the evidence of Dr Kenneth Hossack, who had given evidence that many people with coronary artery disease do not experience ventricular fibrillation over the course of their lives. The Full Bench held that the AAT’s conclusion that the ventricular fibrillation was the inevitable consequence of Mr Szajna’s coronary artery disease was not supported by the evidence. The Full Bench held that the AAT had erred in law by concluding that the ventricular fibrillation was not an injury within s 5A(1) of the SRC Act.