Andreas Klaus and Telstra Corporation Limited
[2014] AATA 200
[2014] AATA 200
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number(s)
2012/5284
Re
Andreas Klaus
APPLICANT
And
Telstra Corporation Limited
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Ms J L Redfern, Senior Member Date 9 April 2014 Place Sydney The decision under review is set aside and in substitution the Tribunal decides that Telstra is liable to pay compensation pursuant to s 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in relation to a right knee arthroscopic chondroplasty and removal of loose bodies performed by Dr Sorrenti on 27 June 2012.
..................[sgd]............................................
Ms J L Redfern, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – claim for cost of medical treatment – whether treatment in respect of accepted workplace injury – decision set aside
LEGISLATION
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4, 16
CASES
Australian Postal Corporation v Burch (1998) 85 FCR 264
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms J L Redfern, Senior Member
9 April 2014
BACKGROUND
This is an application for review of a decision that Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra) is not liable to pay for the cost of medical treatment obtained by Mr Andreas Klaus, which he contends relates to an accepted workplace injury he sustained in 1999.
Mr Klaus has worked at Telstra, and its predecessor, since 1983 as a linesman and later as a communications technician. Mr Klaus sustained an injury to his right knee in 1994 while skiing and consulted a doctor at that time. He sustained a second injury, again while skiing, in July 1995 and had surgery in 1996 as a result of those injuries.
Mr Klaus was injured at work in October 1999 while installing telecommunications cables in a new estate. This is not in dispute. He had surgery soon after the injury and the cost of his medical treatment was paid by Telstra. He was also paid for his time off work and in 2005 was paid a lump sum for permanent impairment.
Mr Klaus continued working and skiing, apparently without incident, until about June 2012. After complaining of pain and restriction in his right knee, Mr Klaus had a further operation in June 2012 and made a workers’ compensation claim for the cost of the surgery. Liability was declined in July 2012. Mr Klaus requested reconsideration of this determination and by letter dated 23 October 2012, he was advised that the original decision was affirmed. This decision is disputed by Mr Klaus and he seeks an order that the reconsideration decision be set aside and substituted with a decision that Telstra is liable to pay for his medical treatment.
This review relates to the rights and obligations created under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (Cth) (the Act). Under Part VIII of the Act, certain corporations may be granted a licence to self-insure and/or manage their workers’ compensation liabilities within the framework established by the Commonwealth under the Act rather than the various State workers’ compensation schemes. Telstra holds such a licence and, as such, its liability for workers’ compensation is covered by the Act.
To establish liability under the Act there must be a workplace “injury”. There has been amendment to the Act in relation to the definition of “injury” but it is common ground that the relevant provisions for this review are those contained in s 4(1) of the Act as it was just before the April 2007 amendments. Under both the old and the new provisions, an “injury” is defined as meaning a disease suffered by a employee, a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment or an aggravation of a physical or mental injury being an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, employment).
As observed by the Full Federal Court in Australian Postal Corporation v Burch (1998) 85 FCR 264, the “policy manifest in the drafting of the Act is to require a higher level of work connection in the case of disease”. Thus, if the injury in respect of which compensation is claimed is a “disease” rather than an injury in the ordinary sense, which is sometimes referred to as a frank injury or injury simpliciter, there must be a causal connection between the disease and employment. Prior to April 2007, the relevant test was that the employment must have contributed “in a material degree” to the disease. After April 2007, the contribution required to establish liability is “to a significant degree”.
Section 16 of the Act provides that where an employee suffers an injury, Comcare (or the licenced employer, as the case may be) is “liable to pay … the cost of medical treatment obtained in relation to the injury (being treatment that it was reasonable for the employee to obtain in the circumstances)”.
Telstra does not dispute that the surgery in June 2012 was reasonable given the problems with Mr Klaus’ right knee but contends this medical treatment is not compensable because it did not relate to his workplace injury in 1999.
There is dispute about the nature and severity of the 1999 injury, and the circumstances leading to this injury, but otherwise there is little controversy about the facts. Mr Klaus contended he sustained a physical injury at work in October 1999 and that this injury, and subsequent surgery, led to the need for further surgery in June 2012. It is further contended that there is no evidence Mr Klaus sustained a skiing injury in 2012 and the fact he had underlying problems with his right knee prior to the workplace injury does not affect liability. Telstra contended that Mr Klaus’ injury in 1999 was not as severe as reported to his treating surgeon and the surgery in 2012 did not relate to his workplace injury but rather the underlying problems with his right knee, compounded by the continued stress of skiing, which was further aggravated in 2012.
The critical issue for determination was whether the arthroscopic chondroplasty and removal of loose bodies in Mr Klaus’ right knee on 27 June 2012 was a medical treatment “in relation to” the workplace injury in October 1999.
THE EVIDENCE
Mr Klaus suffered an injury to his right elbow and knee as a result of a motor vehicle accident in 1984. In January 1985, Dr John Bannister performed an arthroscopy of Mr Klaus’ right knee, which confirmed the presence of “retro patellar chondromalacia”. There was no evidence Mr Klaus sought further treatment for his right knee until July 1994, when he sustained an injury while skiing. Mr Klaus consulted his general practitioner, Dr David Chan, and orthopaedic surgeon, Dr John Harrison, about this injury in July 1994. Dr Harrison reported that Mr Klaus had twisted and fallen sustaining an injury to his right knee from an 8 foot drop. He further reported “antero-lateral rotatory instability” in the right knee but noted that Mr Klaus had opted for conservative care, involving exercise and physiotherapy.
Mr Klaus again injured his right knee while skiing in July 1995 and consulted Dr Jay Dave, orthopaedic surgeon, in March 1996. Dr Dave performed an arthroscopy on Mr Klaus’ right knee on 23 May 1996 and recorded as follows:
There was a large bucket handle tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus which was removed arthroscopically. The fragment had subluxed into the medial gutter. The cruciate ligament was scarred and there was an empty notch. The scarred portion of the cruciate ligament was debrided. There was grade (1-2) changes over the medial femoral condyle and grade (1-2) changes of the retropatella surface. The lateral compartment was relatively well preserved showing no evidence of degenerative changes. The lateral meniscus was intact.
There was no record of further complaint or treatment by Mr Klaus in respect of this injury until he sustained the workplace injury on 19 October 1999. There are a number of different accounts recorded describing the circumstances leading to the injury and the symptoms experienced by Mr Klaus at the time. Telstra contends the injury was not as serious as Mr Klaus is now seeking to allege. He is exaggerating the nature and extent of the incident to support the claim he sustained a serious physical injury, the effects of which continued until 2012 and resulted in the surgery of June 2012. Counsel for Mr Klaus submitted that there is no material inconsistency between these accounts. The preponderance of the evidence is to the effect Mr Klaus sustained a serious frank injury during the course of his employment.
Given this controversy, it is therefore relevant to examine these various accounts in some detail.
According to a Health and Safety Incident Notification lodged by Mr Klaus’ supervisor on the day of the incident, it was recorded as follows:
While Andy was kneeling on his knee pad forming cable in a P5 pit which was situated in a garden, the knee pad rolled on the garden edging causing an audible click in his right knee. Andy initially complained of stiffness in his right knee.
Mr Klaus lodged a workers’ compensation claim on 9 November 1999 and, in answer to the question “In your own words describe the sequence of events leading to the current injury/illness and the body part(s) affected”, Mr Klaus responded in the limited space provided (5 lines) as follows:
While I was kneeling on my kneeling pad forming cable in P5 pit that was in a garden, the knee pad moved on garden edging causing an [sic] click in my right knee [and] initially had pain to my right knee and stiffness.
The medical certificate provided by Dr Chan noted that Mr Klaus “felt a click and pain in R knee when getting up while kneeling”.
Mr Klaus was referred to Dr Dave who described the incident in his report of 11 November 1999 as follows:
[Mr Klaus] was initially on a flexed ladder when his knee wobbled and gave way. He didn’t have too much problem immediately after that but on doing further work laying some cable on the ground his knee started sinking into the soft mud as he was squatting down and he twisted. He then felt a sharp click and since then has had locking, clicking and giving way of the joint. He also felt a loose body floating within the joint.
As already noted, Mr Klaus was paid a lump sum for permanent impairment. As part of the process of considering his claim, Mr Klaus was reviewed by Dr John Gordon Allman, consultant orthopaedic surgeon, in May 2005. In his report dated 19 May 2005 Dr Allman recorded that Mr Klaus was kneeling on some soft earth covered with woodchips wiring up connections. The surface around the pit sloped towards it and his position was uncomfortable on his knees. After about two hours, Mr Klaus noticed his knees were sinking into the soft surface aggravating the downward slope and his right knee became increasingly painful. Dr Allman noted that Mr Klaus “partly stood up to try and overcome the discomfort and he felt a significant click in his right knee”.
Mr Klaus saw Dr Samiul Sorrenti, orthopaedic surgeon, on 21 June 2012. Dr Sorrenti subsequently performed the surgery in respect of which Mr Klaus now makes a claim and he was asked to prepare a number of reports for the purposes of Mr Klaus’ workers’ compensation claim. Relevantly, Dr Sorrenti recorded the following history in his report of 20 December 2012:
The relevant past history your client had sustained an injury to his right knee in 1994 as a result of a motor vehicle accident. He had an arthroscopy and from that information he made a good recovery following that. In 1995 your client twisted his right knee while skiing and in 1996 he underwent another arthroscopy and partial meniscectomy. In 1999 he sustained another injury to his right knee when he moved quickly causing a twisting injury to his right knee he felt a snap and subsequent to that because of a ruptured anterior cruciate ligament he underwent an arthroscopic reconstruction.
Mr Klaus was reviewed by Dr David Maxwell, orthopaedic and spinal surgeon and medico-legal consultant, on 13 June 2013 at the request of Telstra. Dr Maxwell recorded the following history:
[Mr Klaus] informed me he was working in a garden bed. A pit had been inserted into loose soil and he was kneeling on the edge of the pit. The pit was on a slope. The loose soil gave way and then and the pit collapsed. He twisted his right knee. His knee was painful when he got up.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Mr Klaus said that there was a deadline for the job that he was working on and he and other Telstra workers were working in the rain and soft soil. He said that he was on a ladder then commenced work on the ground, kneeling in a garden bed on the edge of a pit cavity. The pit and the trench collapsed and he lurched forward on the loose dirt as the trench collapsed. He twisted his knee at the time and felt a snap.
Mr Klaus was cross-examined about the inconsistencies in the histories he was reported to have given in respect of the workplace incident. Under cross-examination, Mr Klaus repeated his evidence that he had fallen into the trench and twisted his knee in the process. When Mr Klaus was questioned about the various accounts given to doctors and included in his various claim forms, Mr Klaus acknowledged that what was recorded in the various reports of the doctors was “probably” what he would have said. In relation to the claim forms, Mr Klaus stated he was asked to keep his reports “short and sweet” and there was insufficient room in the claim form to complete a full account of the incident. He also said he was reluctant to include too much detail as he did not want his supervisors to be questioned about any unsafe practices in authorising work in wet conditions. His supervisor subsequently viewed the site and no issues were raised with him.
Liability was accepted to pay compensation for this injury and on 16 December 1999, Dr Dave performed an arthroscopic examination of Mr Klaus’ right knee with an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. In a report to Dr Chan, Dr Dave noted that there were some loose bodies within the joint which were removed. Mr Klaus commenced physiotherapy and exercise programs soon after the surgery and returned to work on restricted duties from 22 February 2000. On 10 July 2001 GIO Australia, who were managing Telstra’s workers’ compensation scheme, made a determination that Telstra was no longer liable to pay compensation in respect of this injury.
Mr Klaus made a claim for permanent impairment pursuant to sections 24 and 27 of the Act and by letter dated 31 May 2005 from GIO Australia, Mr Klaus was notified of the determination that Telstra was liable to pay compensation for permanent impairment of 10%. Mr Klaus accepted the offer of compensation and executed an irrevocable election on 22 June 2005 in respect of this claim. He received compensation of $25,798.22. It appears liability was accepted on the basis of a report from Dr Allman dated 19 May 2005.
Dr Allman reviewed medical records provided by GIO and referred to the injury sustained by Mr Klaus to his right knee prior to the May 1996 operation. He nonetheless concluded that Mr Klaus sustained an injury on 19 October 1999, from which he was still suffering the results, including restriction of motion. Dr Allman opined that Mr Klaus had sustained an aggravation of the pre-existing condition of his right knee. He noted that Mr Klaus’ right knee was asymptomatic until 19 October 1999, when it became symptomatic after the work incident. Relevantly, Dr Allman concluded as follows:
Evidence suggests that as a result of the incident at work he described, the laxity that was already present was aggravated to the extent that the surgical repair by reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament was indicated.
Dr Allman further opined that the restriction in the range of movement to Mr Klaus’ right knee was a permanent change.
The medical records of Mr Klaus’ general practitioner were summonsed, extracts of which were tendered by the parties. There was no evidence Mr Klaus experienced further incidents or took time off work following the workplace accident and subsequent rehabilitation until 2012, although he told Dr Allman in 2005 “his knee has never really felt right, though at times it is painless and he is able to run on it, but at other times it swells and is uncomfortable”.
Mr Klaus saw Dr Sorrenti on 21 June 2012. According to a report from Dr Sorrenti dated 21 June 2012, Mr Klaus told him he went skiing on the long weekend in June 2012 and did not have too much trouble, seemed to be coping relatively well but had noticed since then that his right knee was “troublesome”. Mr Klaus also told Dr Sorrenti he had a small injury at work about six weeks before but this had settled down. When he was cross examined about whether there had been a skiing accident in June 2012, Mr Klaus denied there had been any incident or that he had sustained an injury. He said that he had been skiing each year since his operation in December 1999, sometimes a few times each season, and wore a knee brace. He first noticed problems a few weeks before his skiing trip when he jumped a fence while at work. He was having niggling symptoms from this time and had further problems after the long weekend skiing trip. He consulted Dr Sorrenti because of these concerns. Dr Sorrenti recommended an arthroscopy of Mr Klaus’ right knee to assess the damage, clean up and remove the loose bodies in his knee and clean up any chondral damage.
Dr Sorrenti provided reports dated 20 December 2012 (being three versions with small changes), 23 May 2013, 13 June 2013 and 30 January 2014. In his first report, Dr Sorrenti noted that the arthroscopy performed by him on 27 June 2012 revealed multiple loose bodies, Grade IV chondral damage to Mr Klaus’ patellofemoral joint, medial and lateral compartments with a previous reconstructed anterior cruciate ligament but a healthy medial meniscal rim. Dr Sorrenti noted that the majority of the damage related to the patellofemoral joint, the medial compartment and lateral compartment and the reconstructed anterior cruciate ligament. With the exception of the lateral compartment damage, this damage was “very much the same areas of pathology … found at the time of the surgery by Dr Dave”. Dr Sorrenti removed multiple loose bodies and performed chondroplasty and multiple drilling of the trochlea, medial and lateral gutters. He concluded that, based on the history had he had been given and clinical findings, there was a “very strong possibility” the loose bodies he removed during the June 2012 surgery resulted from the trauma that occurred in 1999.
Dr Sorrenti’s two amended reports dated 20 December 2012 and his 2013 reports clarified aspects of the original report. His report of 30 January 2014 responded to three questions posed by Mr Klaus’ lawyers. The third question clarified confusion about a date included in his report of 20 December 2012. This is not in dispute. The first two questions, and Dr Sorrenti’s responses (in italics), are extracted below:
1.Whether a cruciate ligament injury and surgery to repair a cruciate ligament injury are likely to cause the development of loose bodies.
The damage which is sustained at the time of Injury and the subsequent surgery can predispose to the formation of loose bodies.
2.In the reporting letter of Dr Dave of 13 January 2000 commenting on surgery performed on 16 December 1999 after our client’s October 1999 work related injury, Dr Dave notes the existence of loose bodies which were removed at the time of the 1999 surgery. In the light of this history, we would be grateful for your opinion as to whether the existence of loose bodies in our client’s knee in June 2012 is likely to, at least in part, be related to our client’s cruciate ligament injury and surgery in October and December 1999 respectively.
Dr Dave in the surgery would have removed the loose bodies he was able to see, there could have been loose bodies which could not be seen due to where they were located in the knee or they may have been too small to be seen. Therefore the loose bodies in the knee in June 2012 could have been there in 1999 and would have been the result of trauma prior to the surgery in 1999 and subsequently became apparent.
Dr Maxwell provided a report dated 13 June 2013. He noted that the history of Mr Klaus’ work related injury was “a little vague” and the different accounts were “not entirely compatible”. He opined as follows:
In retrospect given the history of this incident it would appear that it was more likely that a loose body which was floating in the knee joint temporarily caught either under the patella or between the tibia and the femur causing the symptoms.
It is probable that a loose body was a result of some chondral damage secondary to the anterior cruciate ligament rupture which was sustained at the time of the skiing accident.
Therefore although the loose body locked in his knee allegedly during work, it could have happened at any time. His work was not a substantial contributing factor to the presence of the loose body.
Dr Maxwell concluded that Mr Klaus suffers from “some osteoarthritis in the right knee secondary to a long standing anterior cruciate ligament rupture, a tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus which was not work related and the presence of loose bodies which were also not work related”. He therefore concluded that the surgery undertaken on 27 June 2012 resulted from loose bodies which were secondary to the anterior cruciate ligament repair and the skiing accident in 1994.
Dr Sorrenti and Dr Maxwell gave concurrent evidence. Both adhered to the views expressed in their written reports but agreed that evidence of a twisting injury in October 1999 would be significant. Dr Maxwell said there was “no documented history of a twisting injury” and, in his view, any loose bodies in Mr Klaus’ right knee could only be secondary to the anterior cruciate ligament repair, which was not work related. He doubted there would have been loose bodies resulting from the October 1999 injury. He also queried the need for the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in December 1999. In Dr Maxwell’s view, it was more likely that the June 2012 surgery addressed problems arising from the prior non-work related skiing injury than any injury sustained on 19 October 1999. Dr Sorrenti disagreed. According to Dr Sorrenti, if there was a twisting injury, an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was appropriate and reasonable. He remained of the view that the need for surgery in June 2012 resulted from the trauma and surgery in 1999.
CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS
The critical issue in the case is the dispute about the nature and extent of the injury sustained by Mr Klaus on 19 October 1999. The question of whether this injury was a disease or a physical injury in the ordinary sense was ultimately not the key controversy.
It is common ground Mr Klause ruptured his anterior cruciate ligament in 1995 as a result of a skiing injury but Dr Dave did not perform a reconstruction to repair this injury when he operated in May 1996. According to Dr Sorrenti, the injury was asymptomatic until Mr Klaus’ workplace injury installing telecommunications cable. It was submitted, and I accept based on the available material (which includes medical records summonsed from Mr Klaus’ general practitioner), that there is no evidence Mr Klaus experienced problems with his right knee for several years after the 1996 arthroscopy.
Counsel for Telstra submitted that Mr Klaus’ recent evidence about the incident is inconsistent with contemporaneous notes and records at the time of the injury. His evidence that he fell forward, twisted his knee and felt a snap should not be accepted. Dr Sorrenti’s opinion is based on this history and the Tribunal should therefore prefer the opinion of Dr Maxwell. It could not be concluded the surgery was in relation to the October 1999 injury. There were other factors motivating the need for the surgery in June 2012 and these factors were not work related. Dr Sorrenti conceded that damage to the lateral compartment of Mr Klaus’ knee was significant and this was a new issue. To the extent surgery was required to resolve problems that had arisen from the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, these were also not work related. While this procedure had been performed in 1999 it related to an earlier skiing accident. It was irrelevant that Telstra had originally accepted liability for the injury and, to the extent there was inconsistency between the medical experts, Dr Maxwell’s evidence should be preferred.
Counsel for Mr Klaus submitted that Mr Klaus had provided incomplete accounts about the accident: first, because he was not challenged on the issue by Telstra, and secondly, because his communication skills were limited. It was also relevant that the key focus of each of the treating doctors and Dr Allman was the diagnosis and not how the accident occurred. No one asked Mr Klaus to give a precise account of the incident until he was asked to do so in his evidence to the Tribunal. When this is taken into account the differences in the various histories are not significant. In any event, Mr Klaus had consistently stated he had felt a click at the time of the 1999 incident and had referred to twisting in his description of the incident to Dr Dave, Dr Sorrenti and Dr Maxwell. Dr Sorrenti was Mr Klaus’ treating surgeon, he has over 25 years’ experience as an orthopaedic surgeon specialising in knees and his evidence was based on the evidence given by Mr Klaus about the October 1999 incident, which should be accepted. His evidence should be preferred to the evidence of Dr Maxwell. It did not matter that the 2012 surgery repaired non-work related damage provided it also related to the 1999 injury and surgery. The nature and severity of the 1999 injury warranted the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in 1999. Telstra accepted liability for the incident and the medical treatment at the time and it is inconsistent to now seek to alter this position.
I am not persuaded by the submissions made by Telstra.
While I accept there are some differences in the various accounts given by Mr Klaus, I am satisfied that those differences may be explained by Mr Klaus’ difficulties in communicating, which he demonstrated when giving his evidence, and, perhaps more significantly, the fact he has never been challenged on this issue or asked to explain the circumstances leading to his injury in detail. When Mr Klaus gave evidence his answers were often brief and sometimes cryptic, but not deliberately so. He gave his evidence openly, made concessions where appropriate and did not seek to defend his previous answers. Mr Klaus did not resile from the evidence he gave about the incident and on several occasions he was asked to expand or explain his brief answers, which he did easily when prompted. Telstra is not bound by its previous decision to accept liability but this decision has no doubt influenced the information provided by Mr Klaus, initially in support of his claim and later to treating doctors. He was not challenged about the circumstances leading to the injury in 1999. Diagnosis and treatment was the key focus at the time of the earlier reports and I accept his evidence that he was asked to keep his reporting “short and sweet”. Mr Klaus was never advised that his account would be closely scrutinised and, given liability was accepted, it is unlikely this would have occurred to him. Mr Klaus disclosed his previous non-work related injuries and I found his evidence to be credible and consistent.
In summary, I accept the evidence of Mr Klaus about the incident and I furthermore accept his account of the seriousness and nature of the injury. I am satisfied Mr Klaus felt a click with a twisting motion at the time of the incident and that his description of falling towards the slippery pit and then trying to stop his fall is likely to be an accurate account of how the accident happened. I am therefore satisfied Mr Klaus’ injury was the result of a sudden trauma and twisting action. It was a frank injury.
The issue is complicated by the fact that at the time of the 1999 incident Mr Klaus had a pre-existing ruptured anterior cruciate ligament, which was not work related. Dr Dave performed an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in December 1999 following the incident and complaint from Mr Klaus about his right knee. Dr Dave did not report why, nor was he requested to do so. Telstra did not dispute this claim at the time so there is no evidence about these matters. In response to the evidence of Dr Maxwell that this repair related to a prior injury and was not necessary, Dr Sorrenti gave evidence that the reconstruction in 1999 was a reasonable response, particularly given the twisting traumatic nature of the work related injury. I accept this evidence and am therefore satisfied that Mr Klaus’ ruptured anterior cruciate ligament was aggravated by the October 1999 work incident.
I also accept the evidence of Dr Sorrenti that the loose bodies removed by him were likely to relate to the trauma in October 1999 or the surgery in December 1999 following the trauma. He gave evidence that it was possible not all loose bodies had been removed in the December 1999 surgery. He also noted that surgery, in this case from the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, may predispose to the formation of loose bodies. Both doctors agreed that loose bodies could result from an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
In the June 2012 surgery, Dr Sorrenti removed loose bodies and repaired damage to the patella and inside and outside joints. The removal of loose bodies was an important part of the operative procedure, as evidenced by the operation report of Dr Sorrenti. It was not insignificant. Having regard to this evidence, I am therefore satisfied there was sufficient nexus between the surgery and the 1999 injury to be characterised as a medical treatment in relation to the injury.
I set aside the reconsideration decision and substitute a decision that Telstra is liable to pay compensation pursuant to s 16 of the Act in relation to a right knee arthroscopic chondroplasty and removal of loose bodies performed by Dr Sorrenti on 27 June 2012.
I certify that the preceding 45 (forty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms J L Redfern, Senior Member ...............[sgd].................................................
Associate
Dated 9 April 2014
Date of hearing 6 February 2014 Counsel for the Applicant Mr L T Grey Solicitors for the Applicant Carroll & O'Dea Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent Mr C Clark Solicitors for the Respondent Curwoods Lawyers
0
1
0