Uka and Comcare - [2004] AATA 893

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 893
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Nº V2004/110
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

Re: JAMES MADUKA UKA
Applicant

And: COMCARE
Respondent

DECISION
Tribunal:       Miss E.A. Shanahan, Member
Date:             26 August 2004
Place:            Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
(sgd) E.A. Shanahan
Member

COMPENSATION – worker's compensation – workplace stress – schizophrenia – whether employment contributed to the development of or aggravation to a material degree – compensable injury
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 14
Golds v Comcare (1999 FCA 1481
Re Welsford and Commonwealth Banking Corporation (1984) 1 AAR 42
Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FCR 316
Trewin v Comcare (1998) 84 FCR 171
Wiegand v Comcare Australia (2002) 72 ALD 795
REASONS FOR DECISION
26 August 2004   Miss E.A. Shanahan, Member
1.      This is an application by James Maduka Uka (the applicant) for review of a decision of a delegate of Comcare (the respondent) rejecting the applicant's claim for compensation for a nervous breakdown (later termed an acute reaction to stress). Following the applicant’s request for reconsideration, the decision was affirmed by an authorised review officer (ARO) on 9 February 2004. The applicant lodged an application for review of the decision by the Tribunal on the same day.
2. The applicant was self‑represented, and the respondent was represented by Mr J. Lenczner of counsel, instructed by Phillips Fox, solicitors. The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the T‑documents), the applicant’s reply to the respondent's statement of facts and contentions (Exhibit A1) and the report of the Mental Health Review Board (Exhibit A2). The respondent tendered its statement of facts and contentions with attachments (Exhibit R1); a supplementary report by Dr Y. Greenberg, psychiatrist, (Exhibit R2); a statement of Mr A. Gilbert, the applicant’s immediate supervisor, (Exhibit R3); a statement of Mr C. Mosele, an officer of the Federal Court of Australia (the Federal Court), (Exhibit R4); a statement of Ms B. Armatys, a solicitor at Phillips Fox (Exhibit R5) and copies of the documents provided to Dr Greenberg for her opinion (Exhibit R6).
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION
3.      The applicant was appointed to the position of Administrative Services Officer, Class 3, in the Australian Public Service, effective from 2 November 1992. The applicant was to work in the Victorian District Registry of the Federal Court and his appointment was made under the Equal Employment Opportunity Program. His appointment was subject to a six month probationary period, during which time his employer would assess his conduct, work performance and medical fitness, before his appointment could be confirmed. The applicant was, at the time of appointment, 35 years of age, having been born on 5 November 1957 in Nigeria, and was a permanent resident in Australia.
4.      The applicant’s supervisor provided probationary reports on a regular basis, from March to May 1993. All found the applicant’s performance unacceptable due to a lack of knowledge, a…

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 Uka and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Uka and Comcare [2004] AATA 893
Case: [2004] AATA 893
Decision Date: 26 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James Maduka Uka applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of Comcare's rejection of his claim for compensation for a nervous breakdown, later diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia. Uka argued that his employment with the Commonwealth between November 1992 and May 1993 contributed to his condition. Comcare rejected the claim, and the decision was affirmed upon reconsideration. The Tribunal was required to determine if Uka's employment contributed to his condition to a material degree under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

The Tribunal examined the evidence and submissions, including psychiatric evaluations, witness statements, and probationary reports. Dr. Yvonne Greenberg, a consultant psychiatrist, concluded that Uka's work performance issues during his employment were indicative of prodromal symptoms of schizophrenia, which were not related to his employment. Comcare argued that Uka's schizophrenia was pre-existing and not materially contributed to by his employment. Uka contended that there was a possibility his employment contributed to his condition.

The Tribunal found that Uka suffered from severe paranoid schizophrenia, with his thought disorder and poor insight persisting. The evidence, particularly Dr. Greenberg's testimony, suggested that Uka's early symptoms of schizophrenia led to his poor work performance, not the other way around. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decision, holding that Uka's employment did not contribute to his condition to a material degree.

Orders