Woodroofe and Comcare (Compensation) - [2024] AATA 3611

Woodroofe and Comcare (Compensation) [2024] AATA 3611 (9 October 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2022/8188 & 2023/0164
Re:Randall Woodroofe
APPLICANT

AndComcare
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member W Frost
Date:9 October 2024
Place:Canberra

The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review pursuant to subsection 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
..................[SGD]........................................
Member W Frost
Catchwords
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 – definition of ‘injury’ under subsection 5A(1) SRC Act – definition of ‘disease’ under subsection 5B(1) – disease suffered by an employee – disease suffered as a result of ‘reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable matter’ – no liability to pay compensation under section 14 of SRC Act
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, ss 37, 43
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, ss 4, 5A, 5B, 14
Cases
Beasley and Comcare [2012] AATA 411
Comcare v Drinkwater [2018] FCAFC 62
Comcare v Martinez (No 2) (2013) 212 FCR 272
Comcare v Power (2015) 238 FCR 187
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve [2012] FCAFC 21
Radulovic and Comcare (2010) AATA 777
Martin and Comcare [2024] AATA 3113
Moradi v Comcare [2024] FCA 812
Thappa and Comcare [2013] AATA 629
Wilson and Comcare [2010] AATA 396.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member W Frost
9 October 2024
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant, Mr Randall Woodroofe, applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) for review of two decisions made by the Respondent, Comcare, declining liability to pay him compensation under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) in respect of mental health conditions.[1]
[1] Exhibit 1, pages 1-5 and Exhibit 2, pages 1-5.
The Tribunal has considered all documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) and the additional documents taken into evidence in these proceedings, together with the parties’ submissions.[2] For the following reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decisions under review. This means that Mr Woodroofe’s applications to the Tribunal are unsuccessful and Comcare is not liable to pay him compensation under the SRC Act.
[2] Exhibits 1 to 10.
ISSUES
The Tribunal had to determine the following issues in these proceedings:
(a)whether Mr Woodroofe suffered from an ‘ailment’ or an ‘aggravation of such an ailment’, as defined by subsection 5B(1) of the SRC Act;
(b)if so, whether Mr Woodroofe’s ‘ailment’ was ‘contributed to, to a significant degree’, by his employment with the AFP, as required by subsection 5B(1) of the SRC Act in order to constitute a ‘disease’;
(c)if so, whether Mr Woodroofe’s ‘disease’ was suffered as a result of ‘reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner’ in respect of his employment and therefore not an ‘injury’ under subsection 5A(1) of the SRC Act; and
(d)whether Comcare is liable to pay compensation to Mr Woodroofe for an ‘injury’ pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act.
BACKGROUND
Mr Woodroofe is 56 years old.[3]
[3] Exhibit 1, page 2.
Since 2012, Mr Woodroofe…

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 Woodroofe and Comcare (Compensation)

Details

AGLC: Woodroofe and Comcare (Compensation) [2024] AATA 3611
Case: [2024] AATA 3611
Decision Date: 9 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Woodroofe against a decision by Comcare to revoke its acceptance of liability for his adjustment disorder. Mr Woodroofe, employed by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), claimed his condition arose from his work as a police liaison officer with the ACT Policing COVID-19 Taskforce. The dispute centred on whether his condition constituted an "injury" under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act), specifically whether it was caused by reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

The Tribunal was required to determine several issues: first, whether Mr Woodroofe suffered from an "ailment" or an aggravation of an ailment; second, if so, whether his employment with the AFP contributed to this ailment to a significant degree, thereby constituting a "disease"; third, whether this disease was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, which would exclude it from being an "injury" under the SRC Act; and finally, whether Comcare was liable to pay compensation under section 14 of the SRC Act.

The Tribunal found that Mr Woodroofe's condition, an adjustment disorder, was indeed an ailment. However, it then considered whether this ailment was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. The evidence indicated that following a meeting on 11 September 2021, Mr Woodroofe received aggressive communication from a colleague and was subsequently required to return to his substantive rank. The Tribunal concluded that these events constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that Mr Woodroofe had not suffered an "injury" as defined by the SRC Act, due to the exclusion for reasonable administrative action. Therefore, Comcare was not liable to pay compensation to Mr Woodroofe under section 14 of the SRC Act. The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Tribunal had to determine the following issues in these proceedings:(a)whether Mr Woodroofe suffered from an ‘ailment’ or an ‘aggravation of such an ailment’, as defined by subsection 5B(1) of the SRC Act;(b)if so, whether Mr Woodroofe’s ‘ailment’ was ‘contributed to, to a significant degree’, by his employment with the AFP, as required by subsection 5B(1) of the SRC Act in order to constitute a ‘disease’; (c)if so, whether Mr Woodroofe’s ‘disease’ was suffered as a result of ‘reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner’ in respect of his employment and therefore not an ‘injury’ under subsection 5A(1) of the SRC Act; and(d)whether Comcare is liable to pay compensation to Mr Woodroofe for an ‘injury’ pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act. BACKGROUND Mr Woodroofe is 56 years old.[3] [3] Exhibit 1, page 2. Since 2012, Mr Woodroofe has been employed by the Australian Federal Police (AFP).[4] At the relevant time in 2021, Mr Woodroofe was a member of the AFP’s ACT Policing COVID-19 Taskforce working as a police liaison officer at ACT Health’s ‘Health Emergency Coordination Centre’ (or HECC). [4] Exhibit 1, page 786; Exhibit 2, pages 13 and 55 On 24 November 2021, Mr Woodroofe submitted a Workers’ Compensation Claim Form to Comcare in relation to a condition described as an ‘Adjustment Disorder with Anxious and Depressed Mood’ by Mr Matthew Taylor, Psychologist, in an accompanying report dated 15 November 2021.[5] Mr Taylor stated that the ‘stressor’ for Mr Woodroofe’s condition comprised meetings he attended on 10 and 11 September 2021 and the communications he received from colleagues following those meetings, including the requirement to return to his substantive rank with ACT Policing.[6] In the claim form, Mr Woodroofe stated that he first noticed his symptoms or injury at 11.52am on 11 September 2021 and first sought medical treatment on 5 October 2021.[7] [5] Exhibit 1, pages 7-16. [6] Ibid., page 14. [7] Ibid., pages 9-10. On 21 January 2022, Comcare made a determination accepting liability under the SRC Act for what it described as Mr Woodroofe’s ‘adjustment reaction with mixed emotional features’, sustained on 5 October 2021.[8] Comcare was satisfied that Mr Woodroofe’s condition was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment with the AFP and that no exclusions under the SRC Act applied to his claim.[9] [8] Ibid., pages 77-80. [9] Ibid., page 79. In March 2022, three members of the AFP, being Ms Naomi Binstead, Mr Brett Booth and Mr Ben Willis, requested reconsideration of Comcare’s determination accepting liability under the SRC Act.[10] The AFP also made a separate request for reconsideration of the determination.[11] [10] Ibid., pages 86-88. [11] Ibid., page 95. On 23 September 2022, Comcare revoked its determination and declined liability for Mr Woodroofe’s ‘adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood’, because it found that that condition resulted from ‘reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner’ in respect of his employment.[12] [12] Ibid., pages 99-108.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Section 4 of the SRC Act defines ‘ailment’ to mean ‘any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development)’. It also provides that ‘aggravation’ includes ‘acceleration or recurrence’. EVIDENCELay evidenceMr Woodroofe The Tribunal has considered the three written statements made by Mr Woodroofe dated 8 December 2021, 30 October 2022 and 23 February 2023.[18] Mr Woodroofe gave evidence at the Tribunal hearing and confirmed adherence to his statements. [18] Exhibit 1, pages 17-22, Exhibit 2, pages 23-39 and Exhibit 4, pages 81-90. At the time of his workers’ compensation claim which was the subject of the 2022 Proceeding, Mr Woodroofe was the liaison officer, Acting Sergeant, embedded with ACT Health, representing ACT Policing. He commenced the role in March 2021 on a six-week transfer basis. It was due to finish in April 2021, but because of the unknowns of the COVID-19 pandemic there was no certainty about how long the Taskforce would be required. Initially the role was at Mr Woodroofe’s substantive level with the AFP, but by the time he left it attracted a higher remuneration and rank. In relation to the first incident which led to his claimed injury, Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that on Friday, 10 September 2021, he was asked to represent ACT Policing in inspecting a proposed, more secure, quarantine site with many stakeholders and to provide any advice, if asked, from the police perspective. The following day, Saturday, 11 September 2021, Mr Woodroofe attended a meeting at ACT Health to give input with other stakeholders on the facility. It was a hybrid meeting with Mr Woodroofe attending in-person. After it concluded, Mr Woodroofe had ‘a large number of missed calls’ from Ms Binstead, who had also attended the meeting. He returned the call, whereby ‘she just started speaking extremely aggressively’, said he ‘had no right to speak’ at the meeting, she was the one to speak, and he should have ‘deferred to her and said nothing’. Mr Woodroofe said that Ms Binstead’s ‘aggressiveness’ did not make ‘any logical sense’, it was ‘upsetting’, ‘confusing’, and ‘really shook me up’. Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that he subsequently told Mr Booth during a telephone call that he was ‘not coping very well’ after what ‘just happened’, was ‘not coping with this sort of treatment’ and would take a ‘mental health day’ the next day and think about what had happened. Mr Woodroofe said that Mr Booth was neither supportive nor unsupportive. Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that he took a day off work on 12 September 2021, but did not recall whether he worked the following day, 13 September 2021 and said it was subject to his roster. It was put to Mr Woodroofe that Mr Booth had been attempting to contact him that week. Mr Woodroofe said that the phone calls and messages ‘didn’t stop’ from the time he ‘woke up’; it was ‘constant’. He thought he was ‘probably’ contacted by Mr Booth.

Decision

Reasons for decision

As a result of the Tribunal’s above finding regarding the application of the reasonable administrative action exclusion in subsection 5A(1) of the SRC Act, Mr Woodroofe has not suffered an ‘injury’, as defined by the SRC Act, and Comcare is therefore not liable to pay him compensation under section 14 of the SRC Act. DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review pursuant to subsection 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.