TRNC and Comcare (Compensation) - [2017] AATA 1105

TRNC and Comcare (Compensation) [2017] AATA 1105 (14 July 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2015/6250
Re:TRNC
APPLICANT

AndComcare
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Deputy President Dr C Kendall
L M Gallagher, Member
Date:14 July 2017
Place:Perth

Comcare’s reviewable decision of 13 November 2015 to deny liability under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in relation to the Applicant’s claim for compensation, is affirmed.
........................................................................
Deputy President Dr C Kendall
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employees – date of injury – nature of injury – appropriate diagnosis – whether ailment a disease – schizophrenia – brief psychotic episode – prodromal symptoms – whether pre-existing condition – whether Applicant was subject to bullying and harassment in the workplace – whether ailment was contributed to, to a significant degree, by employment – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 – ss 4(1), 5A, 5B, 7(4),14
CASES
Australian Telecommunications Commission v Tzikas (1985) 5 AAR 173
Re Cho and Comcare [2017] AATA 175
Dean v Australian Postal Corporation (2010) 52 AAR 54; [2010] FCA 680
Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth of Australia (1985) 9 FCR 36
Wiegand v Comcare (2002) FCA 1464
SECONDARY MATERIALS
The National Institute of Mental Health, Report on Schizophrenia (NIH Publication No. 15-3517)
American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President Dr C Kendall
Ms LM Gallagher, Member
14 July 2017
BACKGROUND
1.By way of background, the Tribunal notes a number of general factual matters which are set out in the T documents and are not in dispute.
2.The Applicant is employed at the APS6 level with a Commonwealth Government Department (the ‘Department’), where he joined as a graduate in February 2008. In order to perform the role, the Applicant was required to leave his home city and reside in a new city where the Department’s office is located.
3.On 9 March 2013, the Applicant had been drinking at a nightclub and was subsequently stopped by police while travelling home in a taxi. The Applicant was searched and breathalysed. The Applicant states that he thought he might then have signed a document that he should not have. The next day, the police confirmed that there were no outstanding charges against him.
4.On 16 March 2013, the Applicant took leave to return to his home city to visit his family. The Applicant claims he was anxious about getting on the plane and believed he was being followed. The Applicant became more relaxed once he reached his destination.
5.While in his home city, the Applicant sought medical treatment in relation to a mental health condition. The Applicant was certified as unfit for work for a few weeks.
6.The Applicant returned to work on 15 April 2013 and asked to take 12 months leave without pay to allow him to return to live in his home city. On 16 April 2013, he was advised that his request for leave without pay had not been approved. The Applicant…

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 TRNC and Comcare (Compensation)

Details

AGLC: TRNC and Comcare (Compensation) [2017] AATA 1105
Case: [2017] AATA 1105
Decision Date: 14 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a dispute between the Applicant (TRNC) and Comcare concerning a claim for compensation. The Applicant sought compensation for an ailment, which Comcare had previously denied liability for under section 14 of the relevant Act.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant's ailment, described as a brief psychotic episode and potentially schizophrenia with prodromal symptoms, constituted a disease. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to assess whether this ailment was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the Applicant's employment, particularly in light of allegations of bullying and harassment in the workplace, and whether any pre-existing condition was relevant.

Deputy President Kendall P affirmed Comcare's reviewable decision of 13 November 2015 to deny liability. The reasoning, not detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that the Applicant's condition did not meet the criteria for compensation under section 14 of the Act, implying that the employment was not found to be a significant contributing factor to the ailment.

The Tribunal ordered that the reasons for its decision be made available to the Applicant through his parents, acknowledging the sensitive and distressing nature of the hearing for the Applicant and his family.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

For the reasons outlined above, Comcare’s reviewable decision of 13 November 2015 to deny liability under section 14 of the Act in relation to the Applicant’s claim for compensation is affirmed.PUBLICATION OF DECISION Clearly, the hearing of this application was distressing to the Applicant. The subject matter at times moved into areas that were of a highly sensitive nature and clearly upsetting for the Applicant and his parents. Again, the Tribunal is grateful to the parties and their representatives and witnesses for the manner in which they have conducted themselves. Despite the care and consideration that has been shown, there is a reasonable possibility that the decision in this review, and these reasons for decision, will cause the Applicant additional stress. In the circumstances, the Tribunal orders that these reasons for decision be made available to the Applicant through his parents.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.