Batich and Telstra Corporation Ltd - [2008] AATA 52

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 52
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) No V200401357
) No V200600709

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

)

Re RODNEY BATICH

Applicant

And

TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD

Respondent

DECISION
TribunalRegina Perton, Member
Date17 January 2008
PlaceMelbourne

Decision
The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and makes the following decisions:

·     In relation to application V200401357, the Tribunal determines that from 30 May 2004 to the present date and at the present date Mr Batich continued to suffer incapacity and impairment as a result of injury arising out of or in the course of employment;

·     In relation to application V200600709, the Tribunal determines that Mr Batich suffers permanent impairment as a result of an injury arising out of or in the course of employment.

·     The Tribunal remits both matters to the respondent for calculations of Mr Batich’s entitlements.

The Tribunal orders that Mr Batich’s costs be paid in accordance with s 67 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

(sgd) Regina Perton
Member

COMPENSATION – workplace injury – aggravation of pre-existing degenerative condition – whether temporary aggravation – decisions set aside
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4(1), 14(1), 16, 19, 24, 67
Comcare v Amorebieta (1996) 66 FCR 83
Tippett v Australian Postal Corporation (1998) 27 AAR 40
Comcare v Sahu-Khan (2007) 156 FCR 536
REASONS FOR DECISION

17 January 2008 Regina Perton, Member

1.       Rodney Batich has been employed by Telstra Corporation Ltd since 16 February 1989. On 2 February 2004, Mr Batich felt a significant pain in his back while carrying a ladder across his shoulder. He lodged a claim for workers compensation the next day, describing the injury as muscle strain in the lower back. On medical advice, Mr Batich returned to work on 5 February 2004 on alternative duties, with a graduated return to regular hours.   By 26 April 2004, Mr Batich had returned to full time work; but he remained on restricted duties which included a limit on the weight he could lift, as well as no bending, prolonged sitting, standing or walking.
2.       On 10 March 2004, Telstra accepted that Mr Batich’s injury of an acute muscular strain low back was work-related. On 31 May 2004, Telstra determined that it was no longer liable to pay compensation in respect of Mr Batich’s incapacity or medical expenses from that day. On 6 October 2004, Mr Batich sought reconsideration of the decision to stop payments of compensation. On 10 November 2004, the decision was affirmed, albeit with a slightly different wording. On 10 December 2004, Mr Batich lodged an application for review with the Tribunal (V200401357).
3.       Mr Batich continued to experience back pain and saw a number of medical specialists. On 21 December 2005, he lodged a compensation claim for permanent impairment due to his low back and left and right legs.   On 13 July 2006, the claim was refused. On 27 July 2006, Mr Batich sought reconsideration of…

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.

Continue reading Batich and Telstra Corporation Ltd

Details

AGLC: Batich and Telstra Corporation Ltd [2008] AATA 52
Case: [2008] AATA 52
Decision Date: 17 January 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Batich and Telstra Corporation Ltd involved a dispute between Mr Batich, an employee, and his employer, Telstra Corporation Ltd, over his entitlement to workers' compensation benefits. The dispute was heard and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Batich continued to suffer incapacity and impairment as a result of injuries sustained in the course of his employment, and if so, to what extent. The secondary issue was whether Mr Batich suffered permanent impairment as a result of the same injuries.

The Tribunal examined the evidence provided by both parties and found that Mr Batich had indeed suffered incapacity and impairment as a result of his employment injuries. The Tribunal determined that Mr Batich's incapacity and impairment had persisted from 30 May 2004 to the present date, and that he suffered permanent impairment as a result of those injuries. The Tribunal set aside the decisions of Telstra Corporation Ltd, which had previously denied Mr Batich's entitlement to compensation benefits, and remitted the matter back to the respondent for recalculation of Mr Batich’s entitlements. Additionally, the Tribunal ordered that Mr Batich's costs be paid in accordance with section 67 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and makes the following decisions:

· In relation to application V200401357, the Tribunal determines that from 30 May 2004 to the present date and at the present date Mr Batich continued to suffer incapacity and impairment as a result of injury arising out of or in the course of employment;

· In relation to application V200600709, the Tribunal determines that Mr Batich suffers permanent impairment as a result of an injury arising out of or in the course of employment.

· The Tribunal remits both matters to the respondent for calculations of Mr Batich’s entitlements.

The Tribunal orders that Mr Batich’s costs be paid in accordance with s 67 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

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.