Baker and Australian Postal Corporation - [2003] AATA 987

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 987
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No V2001/773

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) V2002/1241

Re ROBERT BAKER

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mrs J. Dwyer, Senior Member
Date1 October 2003
PlaceMelbourne

Decision
1.     In matter V2002/1241:

(i)       The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision made on 10 October 2002, which revoked the initial decision dated 9 December 1999 accepting liability for "pain in left knee and lower back" sustained on 1 November 1999 and all subsequent determinations accepting liability to pay compensation to Mr Baker in respect of "pain in left knee and lower back".

(ii)      The Tribunal remits the matter to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that all determinations made before 25 October 2000 accepting liability to pay compensation to Mr Baker in respect of his left knee injury on 1 November 1999, remain in force.

2.     In matter V2001/773:

(i)       The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision  of 30 April 2001.

(ii)      In substitution the determination of 25 October 2000 is varied to provide:

(a) the injury to Mr Baker's left knee, sustained on 1 November 1999, continued to result in incapacity from 25 October 2000;

(b) Mr Baker is entitled to weekly payments of compensation for incapacity for work since 22 October 2002, when work on restricted duties ceased to be made available to him; and

(c) Mr Baker continues to be entitled, pursuant to s 16 of the Act, to compensation in respect of the cost of medical treatment reasonably obtained in relation to the left knee injury.

3. The Tribunal orders, under s 67(8) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988, that Mr Baker's costs of these proceedings be paid by the respondent.

(Sgd) Joan Dwyer
Senior Member

COMPENSATION - accepted claims for compensation for left knee injury and back pain - revocation of original determinations accepting liability - whether applicant made a wilful and false representation attracting s 7(7) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 that he did not suffer or had not previously suffered from "that disease" - whether injury to left knee an "injury" or a "disease" or an aggravation of a "disease" - whether false statements constitute a false representation that applicant did not suffer from "that disease" - whether applicant aware he suffered chondromalacia patella - whether applicant suffered injury to his back - cease effects determination - whether applicant ceased to suffer effects of injury to left knee - decisions set aside
WORDS AND PHRASES — "injury", "disease", "wilful and false representation"
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4(1), 7(7), 14(1)
Comcare v Porter (1996) 138 ALR 469
Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd (1995) 140 ALR 156
Van Reesch v Health Insurance Commission and Comcare Australia, Federal Court, 5 February 1996, 110/1996
Health Insurance Commission v Van Reesch and Another (1996) 45 ALD 302
Australian Postal Corporation v Burch (1998) 26 AAR 312…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baker and Australian Postal Corporation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] AATA 987
Decision Date: 1 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Baker and the Australian Postal Corporation involves a dispute over the compensation claim of Mr Baker for injuries sustained on 1 November 1999. The matter was brought before the Tribunal, which issued several decisions on liability and compensation. The Australian Postal Corporation sought review of these decisions, leading to the Tribunal's final ruling. The primary issues for determination were the validity of the initial decision to accept liability for Mr Baker's injuries and the subsequent decisions regarding compensation payments. Additionally, the Tribunal had to assess whether Mr Baker was entitled to ongoing compensation for his injuries.

The Tribunal examined the chronology of decisions and the legislative framework under which they were made. It was established that the initial decision to accept liability for Mr Baker's injuries was valid and should remain in effect. The Tribunal found that the subsequent decision to revoke this acceptance was flawed and set it aside. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that Mr Baker's entitlement to compensation for ongoing incapacity and medical costs was justified. By varying the earlier decision, the Tribunal ensured that Mr Baker would receive compensation for his ongoing incapacity from 22 October 2002 and for the cost of medical treatment related to his left knee injury. The Tribunal also ordered that the respondent pay Mr Baker's costs of these proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the initial acceptance of liability for Mr Baker's injuries and set aside the subsequent revocation of that decision. It varied the earlier decision to reflect Mr Baker's ongoing incapacity and entitlement to compensation for medical costs. The Tribunal's orders ensure that Mr Baker receives appropriate compensation for his injuries and mandates that the respondent bear the costs of these proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In matter V2002/1241:

(i) The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision made on 10 October 2002, which revoked the initial decision dated 9 December 1999 accepting liability for "pain in left knee and lower back" sustained on 1 November 1999 and all subsequent determinations accepting liability to pay compensation to Mr Baker in respect of "pain in left knee and lower back".

(ii) The Tribunal remits the matter to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that all determinations made before 25 October 2000 accepting liability to pay compensation to Mr Baker in respect of his left knee injury on 1 November 1999, remain in force.

2. In matter V2001/773:

(i) The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 30 April 2001.

(ii) In substitution the determination of 25 October 2000 is varied to provide:

(a) the injury to Mr Baker's left knee, sustained on 1 November 1999, continued to result in incapacity from 25 October 2000;

(b) Mr Baker is entitled to weekly payments of compensation for incapacity for work since 22 October 2002, when work on restricted duties ceased to be made available to him; and

(c) Mr Baker continues to be entitled, pursuant to s 16 of the Act, to compensation in respect of the cost of medical treatment reasonably obtained in relation to the left knee injury.

3. The Tribunal orders, under s 67(8) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, that Mr Baker's costs of these proceedings be paid by the respondent.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		) V2002/1241
Re		ROBERT BAKER