In this decision, the AAT had to decide if a seafarer's illness resulted from second-hand smoke he was exposed to while at sea in his 60s or was the result of a lifelong addiction.
This decision involved the AAT considering whether to dismiss an application for compensation from a security guard at Parliament House.
The applicant, who is employed by the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) as a hair and makeup artist, applied to the AAT for review of a workers compensation decision made by Comcare. The applicant lodged a claim for workers’ compensation as she suffered from an adjustment disorder due to incidents in the workplace. The AAT considered the actions and decisions made by SBS and determined the injury was suffered due to the employer’s reasonable administrative action and that the administrative action was taken in a reasonable manner.
The main issue for the AAT in this case was to decide whether the applicant, a postman, had developed physical and psychological injuries during the course of his employment. Considering medical evidence, the AAT found that Australia Post were liable to pay compensation for the injuries and remitted the matter to Australia Post for reconsideration.
This review concerned the amount of compensation Comcare was liable to pay the applicant. The applicant retired from work due to an injury and received a lump sum benefit under a superannuation scheme as a result of her retirement. The issue in this matter was the calculation of the weekly compensation payments from the superannuation scheme.
This review was about a Comcare decision finding the applicant was no longer entitled to compensation. The applicant applied to the AAT for a review of the decision and the respondent requested dismissal of the application. The main issue before the AAT was whether there was no reasonable prospect that the application would be successful.
The applicant received compensation for a back injury and made two further claims for psychological and physical conditions that arose from the back injury. The AAT affirmed Comcare’s decision that they were not liable for the conditions.
The applicant made a claim to Comcare for compensation based on anxiety as a result of the actions of his employer. Comcare argued that the instigating event was outside of the scope of his 'employment by the Commonwealth' and as such the applicant's employer wasn't liable. The AAT set aside Comcare's decision and substituted a decision that the applicant was entitled to compensation.
The applicant's existing monthly chiropractic cover was refused when the applicant requested a review of the decision to only cover a single treatment a month. Comcare decided the chiropractic treatment was not treating a workplace injury. The AAT affirmed Comcare's decision.
The applicant made a claim for compensation to Comcare for depression and stress she claimed to have developed during her employment at the Department of Defence. The AAT affirmed Comcare's decision that the applicant was not entitled to compensation.
The applicant was refused compensation for an injury she suffered after falling and hitting her head walking from her car in a car park connected to the building she worked in. The Tribunal decided Comcare was liable for the injury as it was sustained in the course of her employment.
The applicant was refused workers compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder after her employment in the public service was terminated for breaches of the APS code of conduct due to her use of an anonymous twitter account to post tweets about the then government and the Department she worked for. The Tribunal set aside the decision.
The applicant sustained a workplace injury while employed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as a result of repetitive computer and telephone work and Comcare determined that the applicant had no present entitlement to compensation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside this decision.