Aunela and Telstra Corporation Ltd

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 153

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No  A 2006/144

GENERAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		ERIC AUNELA

Applicant

And TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal J.W. Constance, Senior Member

Date26 February 2008

PlaceCanberra

Decision In application A 2006/144 the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider a claim by Mr Aunela for compensation for psychiatric injury or injuries being complex regional pain syndrome and depression. 

…….............................................

J.W. Constance, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Compensation - Jurisdiction - Reviewable decision dealt solely with claim for arm injury –– Applicant sought to have additional psychological injury before Tribunal – Whether Applicant had met requirements of notice and making of a claim - Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider psychological injury – Psychological injury was before reconsideration officer –Tribunal does have power to review separate injury

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), ss 14, 43, 53, 54, 60, 62, 64

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1988 (Cth), s 43

Abrahams v Comcare (2006) 93 ALD 147; [2006] FCA 1829

Buhr v Comcare [2007] FCA 575

Buhr and Comcare, Re [2006] AATA 93

Canute v Comcare (2006) 226 CLR 535; [2006] HCA 47

Frosch v Comcare [2004] FCA 1642.

Fuad and Telstra Corporation Limited, Re [2004] AATA 1182

Grant v Repatriation Commission (1999) 57 ALD 1; [1999] FCA 1629

Lees v Comcare (1999) 56 ALD 84; [1999] FCA 753

Telstra Corp Ltd v Barrow: (1994) 35 ALD 461

REASONS FOR DECISION

J.W. Constance, Senior Member

26 February 2008

INTRODUCTION

1.      On 20 April 1993 Mr Aunela lodged a claim for compensation arising from an injury he suffered at work the previous day.  At the time he was employed by Telecom Australia, the predecessor of Telstra.  He described the injury as a sprain of the left ankle and swelling of the right elbow.  There was no reference to any form of psychological injury and it is not suggested that Mr Aunela suffered any such injury at that time.

2.      On 4 May 1993 Telecom accepted liability to compensate Mr Aunela “in respect of a soft tissue injury to right elbow and left ankle.” [1] Liability was said to have been determined in accordance with section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

[1] T6.

3.      Over the following years Telecom and then Telstra received numerous medical reports as to Mr Aunela’s condition.  On 16 March 2006 Telstra determined that Mr Aunela “ceased to suffer from the effects of the compensable injury on 16 March 2006.” [2]  At the request of Mr Aunela, Telstra reconsidered this determination.  On 1 June 2006 Telstra affirmed the determination.

[2] T101.

4.      Mr Aunela has applied to the Tribunal to review the decision of 1 June 2006.  The application is yet to be heard.  A preliminary question has arisen as to the extent of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review the decision.  Mr Aunela contends that “the claim before the Tribunal encompasses the original physical injury and…