Abrahams and Comcare

[2006] AATA 793

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 793

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No   A2004/341

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		GAVIN ABRAHAMS

Applicant

And   COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal   J.W. Constance, Senior Member

Date  15 September 2006

Place  Canberra

Decision Pursuant to s 42B(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 the Tribunal was satisfied that the application for review of Comcare’s decision made 6 September 2004 was vexatious and therefore dismissed the application.

..............................................

J.W. Constance, Senior Member 

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION - Reviewable decision dealt with claim for carpal tunnel syndrome – Diagnosis incorrect – Applicant sought to have whole of arm injury before Tribunal – Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider whole of arm injury – Original claim was for discreet injury – Tribunal does not have power to review different injury – Application dismissed – Vexatious.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 14, 62, 64, 69, 72

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 42B, 43

Jensen v Comcare [2000] FCA 1684

Commonwealth v Ford (1986) 9 ALD 433

Lees v Comcare (1999) 56 ALD 84

Telstra Corporation v Hannaford (2006) 90 ALD 263

Power v Comcare (1998) 89 FCR 514

Comcare v Hill (1999) 56 ALD 487

Riddle v Telstra Corporation Limited (2006) 149 FCR 348

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Aboushadi [2004] FCA 811

Fletcher v Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 FCR 442

Repatriation Commission v O’Brien (1985) 155 CLR 422

Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn (2003) 73 ALD 659

Re Williams and Australian Electoral Commission (1995) 38 ALD 366

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Oral Decision delivered 24 July 2006)

15 September 2006 J.W. Constance, Senior Member             

INTRODUCTION

1.      Mr Abrahams has applied for a review of a decision by Comcare that compensation is not payable to him in respect of “carpal tunnel syndrome (right).” [1] This decision was made under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) in respect of on an initial application for compensation; it was not a decision to cease liability for an accepted condition.

[1] Document T26 lodged pursuant to s 37 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

2.      A question arose as to the extent of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in considering the application in the light of a concession by Mr Abrahams that he did not in fact suffer the injury claimed.  With the agreement of the parties I decided this question before proceeding to hear the substantive merits of the matter.  After hearing submissions I decided that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with the issue now proposed on behalf of Mr Abrahams. 

3.      I now provide the reasons for my decision.

FACTS

4.      Mr Abrahams has been employed as a clerical officer at Centrelink since 1998. In January 2001 Mr Abrahams first experienced pain in his right arm.  This pain was associated with his typing duties at work.  On 5 June 2001 Mr Abrahams lodged a claim with Comcare for “overuse injury affecting the right arm.” [2] Comcare accepted liability…