Wiegand and Comcare - [2002] AATA 530

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 530

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No S1998/414

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION       )
           Re      JOACHIM WIEGAND
  Applicant
           And    COMCARE
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member J.A. Kiosoglous MBE Dr J.T.B. Linn (Member)

Date28 June 2002
PlaceAdelaide

Decision      The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
  (Signed)
  J.A. KIOSOGLOUS

(Senior Member)

CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – whether various events which occurred during applicant's employment with the respondent caused major depressive disorder – underlying personality traits – consideration of medical evidence.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss.4, 14

REASONS FOR DECISION

28 June 2002 Senior Member J.A. Kiosoglous MBE Dr J.T.B. Linn (Member)

This is an application for review of a decision of the respondent dated 22 September 1998 (T26) which affirmed the decision dated 10 June 1998 (T17), which denied liability to pay compensation to the applicant, Mr Joachim Wiegand, under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act") in respect of a claim for "major depression".
The Tribunal received into evidence the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1-T26) together with 25 exhibits, ten lodged by the applicant (Exhibits A1-A10) and fifteen by the respondent (Exhibits R1-R15). In addition, the Tribunal heard oral evidence from the applicant and Dr David Trevor Coyte, psychiatrist, also gave evidence on behalf of the applicant. The respondent called Professor Robert D. Goldney, psychiatrist. The applicant represented himself and the respondent was represented by Mr S. Milazzo, of counsel.
issues
The issues for consideration by the Tribunal are:

whether the applicant is currently suffering from an injury for the purposes of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act") and in particular whether the applicant's employment materially contributed to the causation, aggravation or acceleration of a major depressive disorder; and
whether the applicant is currently incapacitated, either partially or totally, for work for the purposes of the Act.

applicant's evidence

The applicant, who is aged 58 years, was born in Germany on 16 September 1943. He migrated to Australia in about April 1984, settling in Adelaide. His wife and two children arrived in Australia to join him some four months later. He stated in his evidence that he undertook his education in Germany and that he has not done any formal studies during the time he has been in Australia. He also stated that on his arrival to Australia he had no health problems. He further stated that he was thoroughly examined by medical officers at the Australian Embassy before migrating and was given a "clean bill of health".
Mr Wiegand stated that his first job was in private enterprise followed by a period of unemployment for about a year. He stated that in about April or May 1986 he obtained employment as a clerical officer with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and which position he held until ceasing to work there. He also stated that prior to commencement with the ATO he was subjected to medical examination by the Australian…

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 Wiegand and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Wiegand and Comcare [2002] AATA 530
Case: [2002] AATA 530
Decision Date: 28 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Wiegand, brought proceedings against Comcare under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, seeking compensation for a major depressive disorder allegedly caused by various events during his employment. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia heard the matter. The primary issue before the Court was whether the events during employment were the cause of the applicant's major depressive disorder, or whether it was attributable to underlying personality traits.

The Court considered the medical evidence presented and analysed whether the applicant's underlying personality traits contributed to the onset of the depressive disorder. The Court found that the evidence did not support the conclusion that the events during employment were the sole cause of the major depressive disorder, as the applicant's personality traits also played a significant role. The Court examined the medical reports and testimonies of the experts, weighing the evidence to determine the extent to which the events during employment and the applicant's personality traits contributed to the disorder.

After carefully considering the evidence, the Court concluded that the major depressive disorder was not solely caused by the events during employment. Instead, the applicant's underlying personality traits were found to be a significant contributing factor. As a result, the Court found that Comcare was not liable for the full extent of the applicant's claimed damages. The Court made orders reflecting its findings and awarded compensation accordingly.

Orders