Mindin, Richard v Comcare [1998] FCA 1235

Mindin, Richard v Comcare [1998] FCA 1235

The Tribunal did not make any error of law. It was open to the Tribunal, on the ophthalmological evidence, to find that CSR was a disease rather than an injury; it was open to find that the bedroom incident was not employment-related; it was open to prefer Dr Gale's evidence over Dr Norton Taylor's on the asserted connection between stress and CSR; the reference to the balance of probabilities did not impose an onus on the applicant; and the Tribunal's reasons were adequate. The application was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Appeal / Federal Court Application/appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision After Remittal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['central Serous Retinopathy' 'disease or Injury' 'employment Related Stress' 'causation' 'onus of Proof' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'question of Law on Appeal']
['administrative Law' "commonwealth Employees' Compensation"] ['central Serous Retinopathy' 'disease or Injury' 'employment Related Stress' 'causation' 'onus of Proof' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'question of Law on Appeal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Appeal / Federal Court Application/appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision After Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in law in finding that central serous retinopathy was a disease rather than an injury under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in law in finding that the incident in which the applicant found his wife in bed with another man and the ensuing fight had nothing to do with his employment.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in law in determining that stress associated with the applicant learning Thai was not a factor relevant to the disease.' 'Whether the Tribunal impermissibly imposed an onus of proof on the applicant by referring to satisfaction on the balance of probabilities.' "Whether the Tribunal erred in law by treating Dr Norton Taylor's evidence about a possible connection between chronic stress and central serous retinopathy as speculative." 'Whether the Tribunal failed to provide adequate and sufficient reasons.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not make any error of law. It was open to the Tribunal, on the ophthalmological evidence, to find that CSR was a disease rather than an injury; it was open to find that the bedroom incident was not employment-related; it was open to prefer Dr Gale's evidence over Dr Norton Taylor's on the asserted connection between stress and CSR; the reference to the balance of probabilities did not impose an onus on the applicant; and the Tribunal's reasons were adequate. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's taxed costs of the application."]