Aravas and Australian Postal Corporation

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 339

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No. N2003/661

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		MICHAEL ARAVAS

Applicant

And AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen;
Dr J D Campbell, Member

Date1 April 2004

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

(Sgd)  M D Allen
  ..............................................

Presiding Member

6.      The Respondent then arranged to have the Applicant examined by Dr Maxwell, Orthopaedic Surgeon and on 27 February 2003, a delegate of the Respondent determined that the Respondent was no longer liable to pay compensation to the Applicant for the condition described as “back injury”.  That determination was affirmed in a reviewable decision dated 27 March 2003.  On 23 April 2003, an application for review was lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

7. At the outset, we state that we placed very little weight upon the medical reports contained in the documents prepared for the Tribunal pursuant to s37 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 from Greek medical practitioners.  No doubt some of these reports have suffered in translation and others use terms not generally recognised in Australian medical practice.  Others clearly are erroneously translated, for example at document T112 p247, it is stated that the Applicant has “pain in the cervix”.

8.      There is no doubt that the Applicant did injure his spine on 22 August 1975.  The real question is whether that injury is still playing a part in symptoms the Applicant says he is experiencing and the degenerative changes to his spine shown on radiology, or whether the effect of any acceleration to or aggravation of the degenerative changes have now ceased.

9.      The Applicant also claimed to be suffering from psychiatric illness as a result of his injuries.  There are questions as to whether he is in fact suffering a psychiatric illness or is simply reacting to negative events such as the decision to reduce and then to cease his workers’ compensation payments.  As pointed out in Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439, it is incumbent upon an Applicant who seeks compensation for an alleged psychiatric illness to show that he or she is in a condition outside the normal boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour.

10.     In his report of 23 January 2003, Dr Maxwell stated:

“PRESENT SYMPTOMS;

He states as he gets older his problem is getting worse. He experiences a burning pain on the top of his head, particularly when travelling in a car. It becomes so bad that he has to stop and get out of the cab.  He experiences back pain which he states radiates down both legs.   He states his pain is worse in the cold weather.  He is able to walk approximately 200 metres.  He does not sleep well at night.  He says he tosses and turns.”

11.     Dr Maxwell’s report continued:

“ON EXAMINATION;

He is a large thick set man weighing 108 kgs and is 177cms tall.  On…