Blandon and Comcare (Compensation)

The matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerned applications for merits review by Mr Allan Blandon against decisions made by Comcare. Mr Blandon sought compensation for a fractured wrist sustained in 2010, which resulted in accepted conditions of carpal bone fracture and chronic pain syndrome. The dispute centred on the extent of whole person impairment arising from these conditions, with Mr Blandon believing he was entitled to greater compensation than determined by Comcare.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Blandon's accepted conditions resulted in permanent impairments for which compensation was payable under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, and how to interpret the medical evidence presented in written reports to determine the extent of any such impairment. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the medical reports clearly established the existence, permanence, and cause of any impairment, and whether pain experienced by Mr Blandon related to his accepted conditions.

Deputy President Gary Humphries P reasoned that while the hearing had concluded and closing submissions made, the medical evidence presented was sufficiently ambiguous to create doubt regarding the correct interpretation of the doctors' opinions. The Tribunal acknowledged that reopening a concluded hearing is an exceptional step, but found that the circumstances warranted it. This decision was influenced by the fact that the ambiguity in the medical evidence meant the Tribunal could not confidently determine Mr Blandon's entitlement to compensation based on the initial hearing. The Tribunal also considered that reopening the hearing would not significantly affront the public interest in finality or expedition, given the relatively short delay until the resumed hearing.

The Tribunal acceded to Mr Blandon's request to reopen the hearing, finding that exceptional circumstances existed. This decision was made despite Comcare's arguments regarding the adequacy of the opportunity to present the case, the public interest in finality, and potential cost consequences. The Tribunal noted that Comcare had indicated an intention to adduce new evidence relating to Mr Blandon's credit as a witness.