Blunden and Comcare

[2003] AATA 957

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 957

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No Q2002/590

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		JOHN BLUNDEN

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr RG Kenny, Member

Date26 September 2003 

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review. 

(Sgd) RG Kenny
  Member

CATCHWORDS

WORKERS COMPENSATION – alleged injury or disease occurring prior to commencement of Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 – Transitional provisions – whether notice of injury given as soon as practicable under Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930 – whether Commonwealth prejudiced by want of notice – whether want of defect of notice due to mistake or other reasonable cause – failure to make claim within specified period – whether failure to make claim due to mistake or other reasonable cause

Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930 ss 9, 16

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 s 124

Re Buttfield and Comcare [2001] AATA 335
Comcare v Luck (1999) 29 AAR 403
Commonwealth v Connors (1989) 86 ALR 247
Re McCarthy and Comcare [2002] AATA 5
Re Harbutt and Department of Defence (1998) 51 ALD 159
Re Muras and Department of Defence (1988) 52 ALD 579
Re Tierney and Reserve Bank of Australia (1988) 15 ALD 534
Re Willis and Australian Telecommunications Commission (1989) 19 ALD 665
Re Siemsen and Comcare [1999] AATA 871
Telstra Corporation v Roycroft [1997] FCA 774

REASONS FOR DECISION

26 September 2003  Mr RG Kenny, Member      

Background

1.       On 9 May 2001, John Blunden (the applicant) lodged a “Claim for Rehabilitation and Compensation” to which he attached various medical reports pertaining to his service in the Royal Australian Navy and a medical report, dated 23 April 2001, from Dr Diana Lange, Psychiatrist, in which she described him as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.  It was the applicant’s contention that the condition had developed as a result of aspects of his service in the Navy. 

2.       On 13 February 2002, a delegate with the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service determined that the claim should be disallowed and, on 28 May 2002, another delegate affirmed that decision.

3.       On 9 July 2002, the applicant sought review of that decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) and the matter is to be determined under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act).

Appearances

4.       The applicant was represented by Mr R Hume of Counsel. Comcare (the respondent) was represented by Mr C Clark of Counsel.

5.       The following material was tendered and taken into evidence:

Exhibit 1 - the documents prepared in accordance with section 37 of the AAT Act (“T” Documents – T1 to T26);

Exhibit 2 - a medical report, dated 17 October 2002, from Dr D Lange;

Exhibit 3 - a statement, dated 4 October 2002, by the applicant;

Exhibit 4 - a statement, dated 29 October 2002, from Mr R Hume;

Exhibit 5 - documents relating to the applicant’s service with the Royal Australian Navy;

Exhibit 6 - an affidavit, dated…