Botros and Australian Postal Corporation

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1152

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          N2004/1109

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		RAGAI BOTROS

Applicant

And AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr J D Campbell, Member

Date5 November 2004

PlaceSydney

Decision

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor determines that:

(1)      The Applicant suffered a work-related injury on 18 May 2003 and the effects of that injury are continuing; and

(2)      The Applicant is entitled to seek payment of compensation for medical expenses and incapacity payments pursuant to section 16 and 19 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 on and from 16 September 2003; and

(3)    The Applicant is awarded costs pursuant to the Tribunal’s Practice Direction for matter N2004/1109.   

  [Sgd]  Dr J Campbell, Member

CATCHWORDS

Compensation – pre-existing condition – injury – aggravation – acceleration – entitlement to compensation for medical expenses and incapacity payments

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 sections 4, 16, 19, 62

Casarotto v Australian Postal Corporation (1989) 86 ALR 399

Martin v Australian Postal Corporation (1999) 29 AAR 420

Darling Island Stevedoring & Lighterage Co Limited v Hankinson (1967) 117 CLR 19

Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn (2003) 73 ALD 659

REASONS FOR DECISION

5 November 2004   Dr J D Campbell, Member

1.      Mr Ragai Botros (“the Applicant”) in this matter, seeks review of two decisions made by Australian Postal Corporation (“the Respondent”), namely:

a)In matter N2003/1644, a decision made by a reconsideration officer dated 8 October 2003 which affirmed a determination dated 16 September 2003, that Mr Botros is no longer entitled to payment of compensation in respect of his back condition as and from 16 September 2003.

b)        In matter N2004/1109, a decision made by a reconsideration officer, of                  own motion dated 20 August 2004 which varied the reconsideration                    decision of 8 October 2003 and the determination dated 16 September   2003 to the effect that:

(i)The effects of the injury sustained on 18 May 2003 gave rise to payments of compensation pursuant to section 16 and section 19 of the Act; and

(ii)In the period 16 September 2003 to the present date (20 August 2004), Mr Botros has no entitlement to compensation for the injury under section 16 and section 19 of the Act.

2. In dealing with these two matters, the Tribunal, mindful that both matters were founded on the same set of circumstances, concluded that the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“the T documents”) prepared for matter N2003/1644 were the appropriate T - documents for matter N2004/1109. As such, T - documents had been prepared and made available to both parties in accordance with the Tribunal’s practice directions, which, in turn, permitted matter N2004/1109 to proceed to hearing.

3.      In observing that the reviewable decision in matter N2003/1644 ceased liability pursuant to section 14 of the Act, the Tribunal further notes that the reviewable decision in matter N2004/1109, being a reconsideration…