Williams and Comcare - [2003] AATA 1210

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 1210

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Nº V2000/1407

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

Re: ROBERT DOUGLAS WILLIAMS

Applicant

And: COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal: Mr B.H. Pascoe, Senior Member

Associate Professor J.H. Maynard, Member

Date: 2 December 2003

Place: Melbourne

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

(sgd) B.H. Pascoe
Senior Member

COMPENSATION ‑ post traumatic stress disorder ‑ whether suffers from condition ‑ whether condition contributed to in a material degree by employment ‑ whether arose out of, or in the course of, employment ‑ army service ‑ incidents during employment with army

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1930

The Commonwealth v Wright (1956) 96 CLR 536

REASONS FOR DECISION

2 December 2003 Mr B.H. Pascoe, Senior Member

Associate Professor J.H. Maynard, Member

This is an application to review a decision of the respondent of 17 October 2000 which affirmed a prior determination of 24 November 1999 that the applicant had no entitlement to compensation pursuant to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act) in respect of a claimed condition of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
At the hearing the applicant, Mr Robert Williams, was represented by Mr De Marchi, a solicitor, and the respondent by Mr J. Lenczner, of counsel. Evidence was given by Mr Williams; three psychiatrists, Dr E. Cole, Dr V. Kothari and Dr N. Strauss; and a general practitioner, Dr L. Woo. In addition to the documents provided by the respondent pursuant to s37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975, the following documents were tendered at the hearing:
Statement of Mr Williams dated 16 January 2002  Exhibit A1
Statement of Mrs M. Williams dated 16 January 2002  Exhibit A2
Report of Dr Kothari dated 19 March 2002  Exhibit A3
Clinical notes of Dr Woo  Exhibit A4
Report of Dr Strauss dated 19 July 2001  Exhibit R1
Report of Dr Strauss dated 13 June 2002  Exhibit R2
Report of Dr Strauss dated19 April 2002  Exhibit R3
Extract from diagnostic criteria - American Society of Psychiatrists Exhibit R4
Mr Williams was born on 28 November 1936, enlisted in the Australian Army (the army) on 23 January 1952 and was discharged from the army on 22 January 1961. In a claim for compensation dated 10 February 1999, Mr Williams stated that he was claiming for post traumatic syndrome caused by stress & traumatic happenings and accidents during army service between 1952 and 1961.
In his statement (Exhibit A1) and his oral evidence, Mr Williams referred to several incidents during his army service to which he attributed his psychiatric condition. These incidents, in chronological order, were:
(a)July 1956. Mr Williams hurt his left knee when stepping from a trench dug for building foundations. Shortly after, the knee was aggravated when scaffolding collapsed. The diagnosis was a tendon injury and he was medically downgraded.
(b)October 1957. Mr Williams was part of a construction team and a beehive in a tree above a cement mixer…

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 Williams and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Williams and Comcare [2003] AATA 1210
Case: [2003] AATA 1210
Decision Date: 2 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Williams and Comcare, the applicant, Mr Robert Williams, sought compensation from Comcare under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 for a claimed condition of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The dispute centred on whether Mr Williams suffered from PTSD and whether any such condition was caused by or arose from his employment in the Australian Army. The case was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with Mr B.H. Pascoe as the Senior Member and Associate Professor J.H. Maynard as the Member.

The legal issues to be decided by the Tribunal were twofold. Firstly, whether Mr Williams suffered from a psychiatric condition, specifically PTSD. Secondly, whether any such condition was contributed to in a material degree by his employment in the army or arose out of, or in the course of, such employment. The Tribunal considered the evidence of Mr Williams, three psychiatrists, and a general practitioner, as well as various medical reports and army records.

The Tribunal found that Mr Williams did not suffer from PTSD, despite the diagnosis of one psychiatrist. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence suggested Mr Williams was an unreliable historian, and that the actions he had taken in the years following his army service were inconsistent with the alleged effects of PTSD. The Tribunal also noted that Mr Williams had not mentioned any such symptoms during interviews with two psychiatrists prior to lodging his claim. Instead, the Tribunal found that Mr Williams suffered from a mild to moderate anxiety state with some depression, which had resulted from his physical injuries and limitations, primarily arising from the 1974 and 1985 accidents.

Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Williams' condition was not due to the nature of his employment in the army, was not contributed to in a material degree by the employment, and did not arise out of, or in the course of, the employment. The Tribunal found that the 1958 motor vehicle accident, which could have been traumatic, occurred when Mr Williams was off duty and on a private trip unrelated to his employment.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mr Williams was not entitled to compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 or the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1930.

Orders