Wade v Comcare

[2002] FCA 305

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wade v Comcare [2002] FCA 305

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the respondent is liable for the applicant’s orthopaedic spinal condition, neurological condition, vascular condition and post traumatic stress disorder – whether the Tribunal erred in law in failing to find that an alternative claim of general anxiety disorder was made out – whether the applicant was denied natural justice – whether the Tribunal limited the evidence of the applicant – whether the Tribunal erred in law by being biased against the applicant – whether there was a causal connection between the applicant’s condition and the fall in 1961

Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930 (Cth)

JEFFREY KENNETH WADE v COMCARE

No Q 60 of 2000

SPENDER J
BRISBANE
20 MARCH 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 60 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:	JEFFREY KENNETH WADE APPLICANT
AND:	COMCARE RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 MARCH 2002
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 60 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:	JEFFREY KENNETH WADE APPLICANT
AND:	COMCARE RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE:	20 MARCH 2002
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by Jeffrey Kenneth Wade (Mr Wade) from the affirmation by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 13 June 2000 of a determination by Comcare of 20 August 1986 to not accept liability for an orthopaedic spinal condition, a neurological condition, a vascular condition and post traumatic stress disorder. 

2. The Tribunal was constituted by Deputy President D.P. Breen, Dr J.B. Morley and Captain E.T. Keane.

3. Mr Wade conducted his own case before the Tribunal and before this court.  The amended notice of appeal states that the questions of law raised on the appeal are:

   “(a)     THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN LAW

   ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF GENERAL ANXIETY DISORDER WAS MADE

   (b)THE APPLICANT WAS DENIED NATURAL JUSTICE

   THE TRIBUNAL LIMITED THE EVIDENCE OF THE APPLICANT

   (c)THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN LAW BY BIAS AS TO THE APPLICANT’S WITNESSES EVIDENCE BEING CONSIDERED BEFORE BEING HEARD”

4. The notice of appeal seeks:

   “(a)THAT THE COURT DIRECT THE MATTER BACK TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

   (b)THAT THE COURT DIRECT THAT THE MATTER BE HEARD AS SOON AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO BY THE TRIBUNAL

   (c)THAT THE COURT MAKE SUCH ORDERS AS TO COSTS AS IT DEEMS PROPER

5. Mr Wade claimed that the four medical conditions he was suffering were caused by a fall from his bunk on HMAS Melbourne on 10 September 1961 during rough weather in the Tasman Sea. It was common ground that such a fall had occurred. [The injury from the fall was accepted…