Wicks and Australian Postal Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 21 min read

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 401

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2002/535
  )          No N2003/599

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re DEBBIE ANN WICKS

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Michael Sassella, Senior Member

Date21 April 2004

PlaceSydney

Decision

The reviewable decision dated 18 March 2002 is set aside and the tribunal substitutes its own decision that the applicant continued to suffer an injury under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”) on and from 31 December 2000.

The reviewable decision dated 3 April 2003 is set aside and the tribunal substitutes its own decision that the applicant is entitled to lump sum compensation for a 10% whole person impairment under the Act.

The tribunal remits these matters to the respondent for it to calculate the quantum of any compensation payable to the applicant in respect of permanent impairment, incapacity for work (in accordance with the findings in paragraph [38] of these reasons) and medical treatment subject to production of appropriate receipts and records.

The applicant qualifies for her party and party costs associated with both applications in accordance with the tribunal’s general practice direction.

[sgd] M J Sassella

Senior Member

3. Where a disease is involved, as the disease of dermatitis is here, it must satisfy the definition of a disease in s 4(1):

disease means:

(a) any ailment suffered by an employee; or

(b) the aggravation of any such ailment;

being an ailment or an aggravation that was contributed to in a material degree by the employee's employment by the Commonwealth or a licensed corporation;

4. The definition of a disease refers to an ailment and an aggravation as relevant concepts. These are defined also in s 4(1):

aggravation includes acceleration or recurrence;

ailment means any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development);

5. An aggravation may also be present where the conditions set out in s 7(6) of the Act are met:

(6) An incapacity for work or impairment of an employee shall be taken, for the purposes of this Act, to have resulted from a disease, or an aggravation of a disease, if, but for that disease or aggravation, as the case may be:

(a) the incapacity or impairment would not have occurred;

(b) the incapacity would have commenced, or the impairment would have occurred, at a significantly later time; or

(c) the extent of the incapacity or impairment would have been significantly less.

Australia Post accepted that an injury in the form of aggravation of dermatitis had occurred and was compensable.

6. If an injury is present then s 14(1) of the Act provides that Comcare is liable to pay compensation to the employee:

Compensation for injuries

14. (1) Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.

7.…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wicks and Australian Postal Corporation and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2004] AATA 401
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wicks versus the Australian Postal Corporation was heard before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The dispute centred on whether the applicant, an employee of the Australian Postal Corporation, was entitled to compensation for a work-related skin condition and associated psychological stress. The Tribunal was tasked with reviewing two decisions made by the respondent regarding the applicant's entitlement to compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's skin condition and psychological stress were work-related and thus compensable under the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to determine whether the atopic dermatitis on the applicant's hands was aggravated by her work, whether workplace stress contributed to her condition, and if so, whether these factors warranted compensation. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider the appropriate legal framework to assess the entitlement to compensation for the established impairment and any associated incapacity for work.

In its decision, the Tribunal found that the applicant's atopic dermatitis was indeed aggravated by the friction caused by sorting mail and by the stress she experienced due to the failure to obtain a benefit as an employee. The Tribunal held that the employee was not precluded from compensation due to the failure to obtain benefit as there were other workplace factors contributing to her condition. The Tribunal established a 10% whole person impairment for the skin condition and applied the formula in section 19(2) of the Act to determine if incapacity payments were due. The Tribunal set aside the earlier decisions and substituted its own findings, confirming the applicant's entitlement to compensation for the impairment, incapacity for work, and medical treatment. The matter was remitted to the respondent to calculate the quantum of compensation payable. The applicant was also awarded her party and party costs associated with the applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

The reviewable decision dated 18 March 2002 is set aside and the tribunal substitutes its own decision that the applicant continued to suffer an injury under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”) on and from 31 December 2000.

The reviewable decision dated 3 April 2003 is set aside and the tribunal substitutes its own decision that the applicant is entitled to lump sum compensation for a 10% whole person impairment under the Act.

The tribunal remits these matters to the respondent for it to calculate the quantum of any compensation payable to the applicant in respect of permanent impairment, incapacity for work (in accordance with the findings in paragraph [38] of these reasons) and medical treatment subject to production of appropriate receipts and records.

The applicant qualifies for her party and party costs associated with both applications in accordance with the tribunal’s general practice direction.

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.