Ashley and Comcare

Case [2012] AATA 4


Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2012] AATA 4

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2010/1268

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re  LEONIE ASHLEY

Applicant

And

 COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

TribunalProfessor RM Creyke, Senior Member

Miss EA Shanahan, Member

Date5 January 2012

PlaceCanberra

Decision

The decision under review is affirmed.

...............................[sgd].......................

Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member 

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employees – permanent impairment -  L5 facet joint strain – aggravation of intervertebral disc disorder -  degenerative spondyloarthopathy – radiculopathy - sciatica – pain in  dermatomal distribution – sensory loss – difference between signs and symptoms -  whether suffered in course of employment – whether effects of accepted injury continued to be suffered – degree of whole person impairment according to  American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th edition)

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) s 4, 24, 27

Comcare v Broadhurst [2011] FCAFC 39

Thurling v Comcare [2008] AATA 270

REASONS FOR DECISION

5 January 2012   Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member

1.      Ms Leonie Ashley had been employed as a senior sonographer by The Canberra Hospital since 1990.

2.      She had an accepted claim for aggravation of intervertebral disc disorder, lumbar region, with a date of injury of 21 May 2001.

3.      On 19 October 2009, Comcare made a determination denying liability for compensation for permanent impairment for the condition under sections 24 and 27 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (Act), a decision affirmed on review on 1 March 2010.

4.      On 1 April 2010, Ms Ashley sought a review of that decision by the Tribunal.

History

5.      Ms Ashley was born in 1960.  She commenced employment with ACT Health in approximately 1976.  She worked as a senior sonographer at The Canberra Hospital from 1990 until her voluntary redundancy in 2007.  Her duties involved her bending from the waist and applying downward pressure on a patient’s body in order to perform ultrasounds.

6.      Ms Ashley said she first noticed problems with her lower back in 1996.  Initially the problems settled with rest and physiotherapy.  However, the pain returned after a busy period at work.

7.      In her workers’ compensation claim dated 1 November 1996, she claimed she suffered an L5 facet joint strain, which developed from May 1996 to October 1996.  She noticed pain in the right hip, some tingling down the right leg to her right foot, and in her lower back when bending and stretching in the ultrasound rooms, the nursing bay and when moving ultrasound equipment. She had X-rays at the time but no further treatment. Prior to 2001, Ms Ashley said she consulted an osteopath, Ms Belinda Livis, and the pain would again settle with massage, rest, and anti-inflammatory and analgesic tablets.

8.      However, in an accident report dated 21 March 2001, Ms Ashley said she had experienced increasingly severe lower back, hip and neck pain in the previous few weeks. She claimed that the factors contributing to her condition were continual…

Continue reading Ashley and Comcare

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ashley and Comcare [2012] AATA 4
Case
[2012] AATA 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ashley lodged a claim with Comcare, the Commonwealth’s workers’ compensation insurer, for a permanent impairment following an injury at work. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed a delegate's decision to reject the claim. Ashley sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court. The key legal issues were whether Ashley's condition was suffered in the course of employment and, if so, whether the effects of the accepted injury continued to be suffered and the degree of whole person impairment. The Court had to determine whether the Tribunal appropriately assessed the evidence and applied the relevant statutory provisions.

The Court examined the evidence and the Tribunal's analysis, confirming the Tribunal’s approach was sound. The Tribunal correctly considered the relevant evidence and applied the principles from Thurling v Comcare and Comcare v Broadhurst. The Court found the Tribunal appropriately distinguished between signs and symptoms and correctly assessed the degree of whole person impairment according to the American Medical Association’s Guides. The Court held the Tribunal's decision was not flawed and should be affirmed.

The Court's reasoning was based on a thorough review of the evidence and the Tribunal's decision-making process. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's assessment of Ashley's condition and the degree of whole person impairment. The Court confirmed the Tribunal correctly applied the statutory provisions and relevant authorities. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision was correct and should be affirmed.

The final orders of the Court were to affirm the decision of the Tribunal, rejecting Ashley's claim for compensation. The Court found no merit in the appeal and the Tribunal's decision stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.