Liability
No decisions
Exclusions
Failure to obtain a benefit
No decisions
Reasonable disciplinary action
No decisions
Section 6A: Unintentional Consequences
No decisions
Journey Claims
Magana and Comcare [2007] AATA 1526 (6 July 2007), Canberra – Australian Capital Territory
The Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for an injury he allegedly sustained whilst walking to work. On his way to work, the applicant bumped into a fence that was on part of the footpath. As a result, the applicant fell and injured his left knee. The respondent argued that there were discrepancies in the times put forward by the appellant with regard to the time of the accident and when he sought medical treatment. The respondent also argued that there were discrepancies with the allegation that the applicant contacted his wife following the accident in order for her to take him home. It was argued that on the basis of these discrepancies, the Tribunal should disallow compensation. However, the Tribunal held that although there may have been minor confusion as to the exact sequence of events, it was satisfied on the evidence tendered that the injury occurred at the time and in the manner put forward by the applicant. The matter was then remitted to the respondent for further consideration.
Jurisdiction
No decisions
Procedure
No decisions
Notice Provisions & Time Limits
Faulkner and Comcare [2007] AATA 1541 (12 July 2007), Sydney – New South Wales
The Tribunal had to determine whether to re-instate the applicant’s application for review so that he could put his entire case before the Tribunal. The application was originally dismissed under s42A(2) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) on the grounds that there was no appearance by either the applicant or his legal representative. However, the Tribunal was later notified that at the time of the hearing the applicant’s solicitor was no longer acting and had failed to properly notify the Tribunal in time. Furthermore, the respondent argued that in any case the applicant failed to lodge his appeal of this decision in time. However, the Tribunal considered the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and the Acts Interpretation Act to determine that the applicant had in fact sent his appeal notice within the 28-day time frame allowed.
In terms of actually reinstating the application, the Tribunal had to consider whether it was appropriate to do so in the circumstances. Although there were considerable delays caused by the applicant in the proceedings, it was found that the applicant had spent a period of time around the hearing date in hospital and that he had relied heavily on his former solicitor. Given that his former solicitor had not properly notified all parties that he was no longer acting for the applicant, the Tribunal decided to reinstate the application for review to give the applicant another opportunity to present his full case.
Incapacity
No decisions
Permanent Impairment
Duong and Australian Postal Corporation [2007] AATA 1542 (12 July 2007), Sydney – New South Wales
Here, the Tribunal had to reconsider two claims. The first was a remittal from the Federal Court regarding the ceasing of compensation payments for permanent impairment with regards to an upper limb, cervical spine and lumbar injury. It was argued that this was as a result of the nature and conditions of her employment. The second was a claim for an injury to her neck and medical expenses and incapacity for the upper limb, cervical spine and lumbar injury.
In terms of permanent impairment in relation to the upper limb and lower back injuries, it was determined from the medical evidence that any symptoms the applicant suffered and any permanent incapacity was not attributable to her work. Furthermore, it was held that her conditions did not arise out of the nature and conditions of her employment. Therefore, she was denied payment for permanent incapacity.
With respect to the second claim, the Tribunal found that based on the medical evidence, the applicant had suffered a neck injury at work in 1994 and that as such should be compensated accordingly. However, given the decision that she no longer suffered work-related impairment, the applicant was also not entitled to payments for medical expenses for the upper limb and lower back conditions.
Rehabilitation
No decisions
Aids and Appliances
No decisions
Household Assistance
No decisions
Medical Expenses
No decisions
