TANIA ROZOWSKIJ and COMCARE

Case [2009] AATA 256


Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 256

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2007/4661

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION )
Re TANIA ROZOWSKIJ

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal J. W. Constance, Senior Member
Dr P. Wilkins MBE, Member

Date21 April 2009

PlaceCanberra

Decision

The reviewable decision made by Comcare on 10 August 2007 denying liability to compensate the Applicant in respect of an injury which occurred on 28 February 2006 is affirmed.

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

J. W. Constance, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – claim for aggravation of pre-existing ailment – depression – employment did not contribute to ailment – employment did not contribute to aggravation of ailment – employment did not materially contribute to ailment – decision under review affirmed

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 – Sections 4, 14

Comcare v Nichols [1999] FCA 209

REASONS FOR DECISION

21 April 2009 J. W. Constance, Senior Member
Dr P. Wilkins MBE, Member         

INTRODUCTION

1.      In February 2006 Ms Rozowskij experienced symptoms of a condition which was later diagnosed as Major Depression. At the time she experienced the symptoms and for some time previously she had been employed by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Her claim that Comcare accept liability to compensate her for this injury under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 was rejected.

2.      Ms Rozowskij is seeking a review of Comcare’s decision to reject liability.  For the reasons which follow the decision under review will be affirmed.

EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACT

3.      Unless otherwise stated, the following findings of fact are based on the evidence of Ms Rozowskij.  We are satisfied of the facts found on the balance of probabilities.

4.      Ms Rozowskij has shown herself to be a dedicated and enthusiastic public servant.  She commenced her career in the Australian Public Service in 2000 under a one month contract.  In the same year she was appointed to a permanent position at the APS 2 level.    In about March 2005 she joined the Case Management Team in the Unauthorised Arrivals & Detention Division of the Department.  Immediately upon joining, as part of her duties Ms Rozowskij was given the carriage of a highly publicised and politically sensitive case which required her to take responsibility for providing advice and briefings to the Executive, the Minister of the Department and an associated enquiry.  This required intense, thorough, timely and accurate research, investigation, analysis and commitment.[1]

[1] Ex. A1 para. 87.

5.       In June 2005 Ms Rozowskij was assigned to higher duties at the EL1 level.  In this position she managed the Sensitive Case Support Team.  This position added to her responsibilities and duties.

6.      Ms Rozowskij described the nature of her work as follows:

The nature of the section involved extremely high pressure, long hours, short deadlines, on call after hours and weekends in understaffed circumstances with voluminous amounts of work.

It was not uncommon for staff in the section indeed Division, to still be at work long into the evening and…

Continue reading TANIA ROZOWSKIJ and COMCARE

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
TANIA ROZOWSKIJ and COMCARE [2009] AATA 256
Case
[2009] AATA 256
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tania Rolowski, a former employee of the Commonwealth, has initiated a legal challenge against Comcare regarding a decision to deny her a workers' compensation claim for an injury sustained during her employment. The claim pertains to an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, specifically depression, which Rolowski alleges was exacerbated by her work environment. This case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Rolowski's employment contributed to either the onset or the aggravation of her depression, or if it materially contributed to her condition. Given the existing medical evidence that Rolowski's depression was not caused by her employment and that her work did not contribute to the aggravation of her ailment, the court had to determine if Comcare's decision to deny her claim was justified under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. Specifically, the court examined sections 4 and 14 of the Act to assess the validity of Comcare's determination.

In affirming the decision of Comcare, the court held that the available evidence did not support a finding that Rolowski's employment contributed to her depression or its aggravation. The court noted that the primary case relied upon by Rolowski, Comcare v Nichols, was distinguishable on its facts. Therefore, the court concluded that Comcare's decision to deny Rolowski's claim was well-founded and in accordance with the statutory provisions. The Federal Circuit Court upheld the decision of Comcare, thereby dismissing Rolowski's appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The reviewable decision made by Comcare on 10 August 2007 denying liability to compensate the Applicant in respect of an injury which occurred on 28 February 2006 is affirmed.

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.