What's News in Commonwealth Compensation

 

Failure to obtain a benefit

No decisions

 

 

The Tribunal had to determine whether the applicant’s psychological injury was excluded as an injury because of reasonable management action.  The applicant was a primary school teacher who had been accused of serious misconduct.  He was treated for a psychological condition and then unsuccessfully claimed compensation. 

It was found that the action taken against the applicant (formal investigations, meetings, a warning letter and suspension from duties) was disciplinary action.  It was also determined that these actions materially contributed to the cause or aggravation of the applicant’s psychological injury. 

In terms of the action being reasonable, the action must be authorised or preconditioned. It was also noted that under his certified agreement and in general terms, the applicant was entitled to be treated fairly and to natural justice. It was also noted that a failure to follow specific procedures does not automatically render actions invalid. However, when looking at the applicant’s certified agreement and the fact that he was not properly informed of his rights in relation to appealing the serious allegations against him, in the circumstances, this failure was deemed not to be reasonable action. Therefore, it was found that the applicant’s injury was not as a result of reasonable disciplinary action.

 

No decisions

 

Here the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for permanent impairment as a result of bilateral osteoarthritis, back pain related to a degenerative disease and general anxiety disorder or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  The applicant served in the RAAF from 1971-1991. He suffered severe bilateral osteoarthritis in the knees onset in 1990-1992, low back pain secondary to degenerative spinal disease onset in 1986 and PTSD onset in December 1983. The knee injury sustained whilst playing employment-related sport was assessed at 10% with lump sum payment accepted in 1992. In terms of the PTSD, the 1971 Act did not provide for lump sum payment of psychological conditions or permanent impairment due to back pathology.

The Tribunal accepted medical evidence that the applicant had suffered from all conditions and was satisfied regarding the onset dates and permanency of those conditions as stated in the reports. In terms of the 1971 Act and the PTSD claim, the Tribunal noted that the appellant’s condition had improved since the original permanent diagnosis in 1983, not to form a new impairment, but to be an improvement from PTSD to a general anxiety disorder. Furthermore, it was noted that the medical reports showed the exacerbation of the lumbosacral pain was only a temporary condition. 

In relation to the bilateral knee osteoarthritis, the Tribunal accepted that since the 1992 assessment of 10%, the applicant’s mobility had decreased but his assessment rating had not changed. The applicant was not entitled to be assessed under the new Guide released in 2006 as the claim was running from the assessment date of December 2005. It was noted that an assessment under the new table 9.7 would have left the applicant with an assessment of 36%. Therefore, the Tribunal suggested the applicant should lodge another claim under the new table for permanent impairment in relation to his knees.

 

Reilly and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2007] AATA 1826 (4 October 2007), Canberra – ACT.

The Tribunal had to determine if the applicant was entitled to compensation for the cost of travelling to a psychiatrist for approved medical treatment. The applicant was subjected to violence during her time in the Defence Force and successfully claimed compensation for medical treatment, but was not able to claim for travel expenses. In order to determine whether she was entitled, the Tribunal had to consider if the specific costs of travelling to receive the treatment were reasonably incurred.

The applicant had seen her psychiatrist 31 times and had made 20 return trips from North Balwyn to Castlemaine, staying overnight in Castlemaine 11 of these times. Applying the formula, the compensation for each trip was $121.54. The Tribunal accepted that the treatment was reasonable as the applicant had developed a therapeutic relationship with her psychiatrist. This was particularly important as the applicant found it difficult to trust people following her time in the Defence Force. Although there was no detail as to the accommodation expenses incurred by the applicant, the Tribunal noted that to disrupt the treatment would result in a detrimental effect on the applicant’s recovery. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to compensation for medical treatment in relation to travel expenses.