Legal Research
Cases
WCNC and Comcare (Compensation)

WCNC and Comcare (Compensation)

Case [2019] AATA 2777 21 August 2019

Type to search within this case.

WCNC and Comcare (Compensation) [2019] AATA 2777 (21 August 2019)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2018/1726
2018/1727
2018/2720
2018/3300
2018/3301

Re:WCNC
APPLICANT

AndComcare
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Mr S. Webb, Member
Date:21 August 2019
Place:Canberra

In respect of the application for a stay of proceedings:
(a)on or before 23 August 2019, Comcare is to inform the Tribunal if it has formalised a request for WCNC to undergo an examination by a psychiatrist for the purposes of s 57(1) and, if so, details of the examination;
(b)on or before 27 August 2019, WCNC is to inform the Tribunal if she refuses to undergo the examination, as requested and, if so, all further materials and submissions on which she will rely for the purposes of s 57(2);
(c)in that event, on or before 30 August 2019, Comcare is to give the Tribunal all further materials and submissions on which it will rely for the purposes of s 57(2), whereupon the Tribunal will proceed forthwith to determine its jurisdiction and the stay application;
Otherwise, should there be no further issue arising in respect of s 57 of the SRC Act –
(d)on or before 30 August 2019, Comcare is to give the Tribunal and WCNC a timetable agreed by the parties for -
(i)the filing and service of all further materials on which each party will rely at hearing; and
(ii)each party’s amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
........................................................................
Mr S. Webb, Member
COMPENSATION – applications for review of decisions denying compensation in respect of accepted injury - request to attend a medical examination in the course of proceedings – application of s 57 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 – particulars of the examination not specified in the notice – requirement for specificity to enable compliance or trigger sanction – purported refusal to attend unspecified examination – conditional agreement to attend – ongoing negotiations - meaning of ‘reasonable excuse’ – rights not presently suspended - stay application held over – orders made
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 2A, 33, 39
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) s 4, 5A, 5B, 14, 16, 19, 37, 57, 60, 62, 64
Cases
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27
Australian Postal Corporation v Forgie [2003] FCAFC 223
Australian Postal Corporation v Sinnaiah [2013] FCAFC 98
Chowdhary v Bayne [1999] FCA 41
Bropho v Western Australia [1990] HCA 24
Buck v Comcare [1996] FCA 1485
Carr v Western Australia [2007] HCA 47
Coco v R [1994] HCA 15
Comcare v Singh [2012] FCA 136
Crawford v Australian Capital Territory [2015] ACTSC 282
Golden v V’Landys [2015] NSWSC 158
McKinnon v Commonwealth of Australian & Ors [1998] FCA 1456.
Melbourne Steamship Co Pty Ltd v Morehead (1912) 15 CLR 333
Plaintiff M47-2012 v Director General of Security [2012] HCA 46
Plaintiff [name withheld] v Stapleton [2017] NSWSC 914.
Pyman v Whitefriars College Inc [2019] VSC 361.
Re Guerriero and Comcare [2017]…

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 WCNC and Comcare (Compensation)

Details

AGLC: WCNC and Comcare (Compensation) [2019] AATA 2777
Case: [2019] AATA 2777
Decision Date: 21 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the matter of WCNC and Comcare (Compensation). The dispute concerned an application for compensation made by WCNC, an employee, under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (the Act). Comcare had denied liability for the claim.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether WCNC suffered an injury, as defined by section 4 of the Act, arising out of or in the course of employment. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant's psychological condition was caused by reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of their employment.

The Tribunal found that WCNC had experienced a psychological injury. However, it determined that this injury was a consequence of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. The Tribunal applied the principles established in cases such as *Comcare v Martin* and *Comcare v A.B.*, which clarify that an injury caused by reasonable administrative action, even if it results in a psychological condition, is not compensable under the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the actions taken by WCNC's employer were reasonable and conducted in a reasonable manner, thereby excluding the claim from compensation.

Orders