Briggs and Comcare
[2007] AATA 1229
•13 April 2007
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1229
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No A2005/307
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re GEOFF BRIGGS Applicant
And
COMCARE
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member Date13 April 2007
PlaceCanberra
Decision The decisions under review are affirmed.
.............(Signed)..................
Mr S. Webb, Member
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION - accepted back and shoulder injury - compensation for incapacity and medical treatment ceased - claim for psychological injury rejected - shoulder injury resolved - back pain - inconsistent complains of pain - previously existing condition not disclosed - condition aggravated by factors outside employment – aggravated by failure to obtain a benefit – aggravation excluded - decisions affirmed
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 14, 16, 19
Comcare v Canute (2005) 148 FCR 232
Comcare v Sahu Khan [2007] FCA 15
Hart v Comcare [2005] FCAFC 16 .
REASONS FOR DECISION
13 April 2007 Mr S. Webb, Member 1. Geoff Briggs sustained injuries to his lower back (non-specific low back pain) and his left shoulder (non-specific left shoulder pain) in employment. He was paid compensation for incapacity and medical treatment expenses. His shoulder injury resolved with treatment. Mr Briggs continued to complain of back pain. Subsequently he claimed compensation for a psychological injury secondary to the accepted injury. Comcare determined to reject that claim and decided that Mr Briggs was not entitled to further compensation for incapacity or medical treatment expenses in relation to the accepted injury. Both decisions were affirmed on reconsideration, although it was decided retrospectively that Mr Briggs was not entitled to compensation for incapacity and medical treatment expenses from an earlier date. Mr Briggs is unhappy with those decisions and has applied for review.
2. Mr Briggs conceded that he was not pressing any claim in relation to the shoulder injury in December 1997, which it was accepted resolved following treatment prior to the period presently in issue in relation to his claimed lower back and psychological injuries. On that basis I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed without further consideration of Mr Briggs’ shoulder injury.
3. The issues for determination are:
(a)Has Mr Briggs suffered a psychological injury in relation to which Comcare is liable to pay compensation?
(b)Is Mr Briggs entitled to compensation for incapacity and medical treatment expenses in relation to his accepted injury (non-specific lower back and left shoulder pain) from 8 February 2005 to the present?
Has Mr Briggs suffered a psychological injury in relation to which Comcare is liable to pay compensation?
4. In Mr Briggs’ submission the relentless nature and severity of the back pain he experienced as a result of his compensable injury caused depression and anxiety. These conditions, he says, are secondary to his accepted injury. Mr Briggs says that his depression constitutes an injury in relation to which Comcare is liable to pay compensation.
5. As will appear I do not agree.
6. Under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) Comcare is liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury if the injury results in incapacity for work or impairment (s.14), or requires medical treatment (s.16). ‘Injury’ is defined to mean, inter alia, a disease, being an ailment or the aggravation of an ailment suffered by the employee that was contributed to in a material degree by the employment (s.4). However, a disease suffered by an employee as a result of the employee’s failure to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with the employment is excluded from ‘injury’ for the purposes of the Act. The word ‘material’ imposes an evaluative threshold below which a causal connection may be disregarded[1], whereby all relevant contributing factors must be evaluated in order to ascertain whether the contribution of the particular employment was material[2].
[1] Comcare v Canute (2005) 148 FCR 232 at paragraph 67
[2] Comcare v Sahu Khan [2007] FCA 15 at paragraph 16
7. I am reasonably satisfied that Mr Briggs was first diagnosed with depression by Dr Eriksson on 4 February 2002[3]. At that time Dr Eriksson noted “Back pain has been an ongoing problem with some deterioration in past 2/12 – feeling frustrated, depressed and irritable b/c same +insomnia teary”. She prescribed antidepressant medication (Aropax), which was later changed to Zoloft. I accept Dr Eriksson’s evidence that back pain was a factor that materially contributed to Mr Briggs’ depression and so find. However, it is apparent to me that back pain was not the only factor that contributed to cause depression in Mr Briggs. On 26 August 2002 Ms Amanda Lucas, psychologist, reported[4] that Mr Briggs was suffering from “severe clinical depression and severe clinical anxiety” and found him to be “overly pain focused”. She noted that Mr Briggs “has significant stress issues concerning his workplace and an apparent reluctance to promote him in any position”. The issue of employment related stress requires further consideration.
[3] Exhibit A4, clinical note
[4] T58
8. As early as 16 August 1996 Mr Briggs was complaining of stress at work and concern that his job “will probably not last 18 months” that was sufficient to cause him to suffer epigastric discomfort, tension headache and sleep disturbance[5]. Dr Wareham’s “? psychology referral” note on 19 August 1996 plainly indicates that she was sufficiently concerned about Mr Briggs’ presentation at that time to consider referring him for psychological counselling. Mr Briggs continued to complain to his treating doctors of symptoms (stress and insomnia) relating to work issues during and after September 1998: Dr Eriksson noted that he was “visibly stressed”[6]; Dr Wareham noted that “stress at work prob contributing” to insomnia and back pain[7]; and Dr Eriksson noted that Mr Briggs was “tearful distressed++” and complaining of increased stress, irritability, alcohol intake and reduced confidence as a result of conflict with a supervisor who purportedly advised Mr Briggs that he would “not get a reference, a job or transfer while working 4 hours/day”[8]. On 1 June 2000 Dr Eriksson noted that Mr Briggs complained of increased stress and insomnia as a result of personal problems, in relation to which she prescribed Temazepan[9]. Mr Briggs said that he could not recall what personal issues he had consulted Dr Eriksson about in June 2000. Dr Eriksson could not assist the Tribunal to determine whether or not personal issues were operative factors in the gradual emergence of depression in Mr Briggs prior to February 2002.
[5] Exhibit A4, clinical notes dated 16 and 19 August 1996
[6] Exhibit A4, clinical note dated 18 September 1998
[7] Exhibit A4, clinical note dated 13 October 1998
[8] Exhibit A4, clinical note dated 20 November 1998
[9] Exhibit A4, clinical note dated 1 June 2000
9. On that evidence I am reasonably satisfied that prior to February 2002 Mr Briggs had a history of symptoms that Dr Donsworth described as indicative of ‘sub-syndromal’ or sub-clinical depression to which his employment materially contributed.
10. It is clear from Dr Eriksson’s evidence that Mr Briggs experienced significant psychological stress as a result of conflict with a supervisor at work in 1998. The stress Mr Briggs experienced was related, at least in part, to the supervisor’s refusal to provide him with a reference. The particular circumstances are not clear. On Dr Eriksson’s notes the supervisor informed Mr Briggs that he would not obtain a reference, a transfer or a promotion while working on restricted duties. It appears to me more likely than not that Mr Briggs may have been seeking transfer to another position at that time (at least on the basis of Dr Eriksson’s notes) and he perceived the refusal to provide a reference and the purported curtailment of his attempts to obtain a transfer as real (even though subsequently he did obtain a transfer). Furthermore, on the evidence of Dr Eriksson, Ms Lucas and Dr Bennett it is clear enough that Mr Briggs perceived that his career in Commonwealth employment stalled in the period from 1998 to 2005 as a result of his injury. On the available evidence I am reasonably satisfied that Mr Briggs failed to obtain a reference and a transfer (temporarily) in 1998 and he failed to obtain a promotion for which he twice applied in 2004 in connection with his employment. Furthermore by his own account Mr Briggs failed to obtain the benefit of advancing his career in Commonwealth employment in the period from 1998 to 2005.
11. The evidence of Dr Eriksson, Ms Lucas, Dr Bennett and Dr Donsworth was that these employment factors were operative with other factors in the deterioration of Mr Briggs’ psychological state. Accepting that evidence I am reasonably satisfied and find that Mr Briggs’ failure to obtain the aforementioned benefits and a transfer in employment in the period from November 1998 were operative factors in his psychological condition when he presented to Dr Eriksson and Ms Lucas in 2002 and that those factors materially contributed to cause his depression at that time.
12. The evidence is plain enough that after 2002 Mr Briggs continued to suffer from and receive treatment for depression. It is also plain that a number of factors were operative in or acting upon his psychological condition. Mr Briggs’ marriage broke down in or about 2004 and he experienced significant difficulties maintaining family relationships with his children and his siblings. Even though Mr Briggs attempted to minimise the effect of these events on his psychological condition, it is apparent to me from Dr Eriksson’s clinical notes and from the medical reports of Dr Bennett and Dr Donsworth that these were operative factors in the progress of his depressive illness. Furthermore, the evidence is clear that Mr Briggs had continuing issues concerning his employment in or about 2004 as a result of his failure to obtain a promotion for which he twice applied and to advance his career[10]. Dr Bennett reported that[11]:
“The evolution of Major Depression is definite and a gradual erosion. Some of this is due to failure to cope and thrive at work with negative results on his advancement, another loss. Some of it is due to the breakdown of his marriage and separation from his wife and (more so) children.”
[10] See reports by Dr Eriksson at T80 folio 291 and T114 folios 366-367, Dr Bennett T113 folio 364 and Dr Donsworth, Exhibit R2, p5
[11] T113 folio 364
13. Thus it can be seen that Mr Briggs’ failure to obtain a promotion, and more generally his failure to obtain the benefit of advancing his career in Commonwealth employment, was materially acting upon his psychological condition and the progress of his depressive illness when he was examined by Dr Bennett in March 2005.
14. Considering all of the relevant evidence, I am reasonably satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Briggs’ depressive disorder was caused, in part, by his failure to obtain a benefit, a transfer and a promotion in connection with his employment. That being so, the claimed psychological injury is excluded by the terms of the definition of ‘injury’ at s.4 of the Act. The fact that Mr Briggs’ claimed psychological injury was also the product of other factors, including work-related stress does not overcome the exclusionary elements of the definition[12]. Mr Briggs’ assertion that his depression pre-dates any causative factor that would render it excluded is not made out. Mr Briggs complained of symptoms that Dr Donsworth described as ‘sub-syndromal depression’ as a result of his failure to obtain a promotion or a benefit in connection with his employment in 1998. That plainly pre-dates the clinical onset of depression in Mr Briggs. Finally, the fact that Mr Briggs’ depressive disorder was caused in part by back pain does not assist his case. For reasons that will appear I am not satisfied that the back pain he was experiencing in February 2002 was the result of an injury in December 1997.
[12] Hart v Comcare [2005] FCAFC 16 at paragraphs 21-22
15. Thus the decision under review concerning Mr Briggs’ depression will be affirmed.
Is Mr Briggs entitled to compensation for incapacity and medical treatment expenses in relation to his back injury from 8 February 2005 to the present?
16. Mr Briggs asserts that he was free of back pain prior to the injury in December 1997 but the pain has been continuous thereafter. In Mr Briggs’ submission the pain he experienced during and after February 2005 is a result of his previously accepted injury. He says that the pain and related psychological symptoms required medical treatment and caused him to suffer incapacity for work on and after 8 February 2005.
17. The facts concerning incapacity for work and medical treatment expenses on or after 8 February 2005 are as follows. Mr Briggs was fully fit for work from 8 February 2005 to 16 March 2005. He was certified unfit for work from 17 March 2005 to 6 June 2005 by Dr Eriksson and Dr Bennett[13]. It appears that Mr Briggs returned to work without restrictions thereafter. In the period from 8 February 2005 Mr Briggs obtained the following treatment: general practitioner consultations, analgesia (Oxycontin, Aspirin, Panadol), anti-inflammatory medication (Voltaren), antidepressant medication (Efexor, Avanza or Venlafaxine), anti-insomnia medication (Stillnox), psychological counselling (Amanda Lucas), pain management (Dr G. Speldewinde), psychiatric treatment (Dr M. Bennett), weekly massage therapy and radiological investigations[14].
[13] T96, T5 folios 151-152, 153, 154-155 and 156 refer
[14] See T83, T85, T88, T90, T92, T94, T96, T97, T5 folios152-156, T101, T104, T111, T113
18. I am satisfied that Mr Briggs is not entitled to compensation in relation to the claimed incapacity for work from 17 March 2005 to 6 June 2005 or the medical treatment he obtained from 8 February 2005. It may be that Mr Briggs experienced incapacitating back pain after 8 February 2005, although that is far from clear on the medical evidence, but it is not established that the pain or the claimed incapacity is the result of his accepted injury in 1997, or that the claimed medical treatment expenses are in relation to that injury.
19. Under the Act Comcare is liable to pay compensation for incapacity for work that is the result of an injury (s19) or for medical treatment obtained in relation to an injury (s16).
20. The evidence of Dr Bennett is that he certified Mr Briggs as unfit for work as a result of his concern about Mr Briggs’ psychological state in March 2005, especially in relation to the possibility of self harm. On the particular medical certificate Dr Bennett wrote “Needs to be off duty for medication initiation”[15]. The medication prescribed by Dr Bennet was anti-depressant medication. On 7 June 2005 Dr Speldewinde reported that Mr Briggs was unable to return to work and “this aspect is being managed by his treating psychiatrist”[16]. On that evidence I am reasonably satisfied and find that Mr Briggs’ incapacity for work from 17 March 2005 to 6 June 2005 was as a result of his psychological state and depressive disorder at the time and not as a result of the injury to his back in 1997.
[15] T96 folio 317
[16] T116 folio 375
21. I have found in the particular circumstances that Mr Briggs’ depressive disorder is not within the meaning of an injury under the Act. It follows that any incapacity or requirement for medical treatment resulting from that psychological condition is not compensable.
22. There is no compelling evidence before me that Mr Briggs suffered incapacity for work on or after 8 February 2005 as a result of the back injury in December 1997. I am satisfied that he did not and so find. Examination of medical certificates issued by Dr Eriksson in the months prior to March 2005 reveals that she certified that Mr Briggs was fit for work but required massage and other treatment for his back complaints[17], which she attributed to the injury in December 1997. Initially these treatments were approved by Comcare, but the approval was subsequently revoked from 8 February 2005 by the reviewable decision in this matter. Thus it must be determined whether the medical treatment Mr Briggs obtained in relation to his back complaints is compensable under s.16 of the Act.
[17] See T5 folios 142-149
23. I am satisfied that the medical treatment Mr Briggs obtained from Dr Eriksson, Dr Speldewinde, Ms Lucas and Dr Bennett, and in the form of massage and medications, following 8 February 2005 was not treatment he obtained in relation to the injury in December 1997. In sum, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the back symptoms of which Mr Briggs complained in 2005 were related to the injury claimed in December 1997.
24. There is no compelling evidence of pathology to explain Mr Briggs’ complaints of back pain. No clear mechanism for his symptoms is apparent from the medical evidence. It is possible that he suffers from a chronic pain syndrome[18] or central sensitisation of nociception[19]. It is possible that zygapophysial joint arthropathy is the cause of his pain, as proposed by Dr Speldewinde[20]. However, none of these possibilities is established as probable to the reasonable satisfaction standard on the available evidence.
[18] Dr White - Exhibit A2, p3; Dr Bennett – T96 folio 317
[19] Dr White – oral evidence
[20] T116 folio 374
25. It is possible that Mr Briggs’ condition has a significant psychological or psychiatric component[21], although I note that none of these doctors is a psychiatrist. Dr Donsworth found no psychiatric condition operative in Mr Briggs[22], whereas Dr Bennett diagnosed florid Major Depression in March 2005 partly as a result of chronic back pain[23]. Mr Stuart and Dr Stevenson reported Mr Briggs’ complaints of ongoing non specific back pain but neither doctor was able to identify any physical condition, pathology or mechanism to explain the pain[24]. On 8 March 2005 Mr Stuart concluded that the soft tissue injury suffered by Mr Briggs in December 1997 had resolved[25]. On 17 January 2006 Dr Stevenson reported a similar conclusion[26].
[21] Dr Speldewinde – T116 folio 374; Dr Stevenson – Exhibit R3, p6; Dr White – Exhibit A2, p4
[22] Exhibit R2
[23] T113
[24] T97 and Exhibit R3
[25] T97 folio 322
[26] Exhibit R3 p6
26. Significantly, the evidence before me is plain enough that Mr Briggs failed to fully disclose his history of back problems and prior injury to Comcare or to Dr Eriksson, Mr Mills, Mr Stuart, Dr Stevenson or Dr Donsworth. Furthermore, he failed to disclose his weekend employment as a casual psychiatric nurse during the period of his Commonwealth employment until 2002. These significant omissions on Mr Briggs’ part must be considered in relation to his admitted failure to fully and frankly disclose relevant matters concerning the break-down of his marriage and related family problems. It follows that the medical practitioners treating Mr Briggs after December 1997, including his general practitioner Dr Eriksson, were not fully apprised of all the relevant facts and history concerning his condition. Dr Eriksson, Mr Mills, Dr White, Mr Stuart and Dr Stevenson examined and reported on Mr Briggs on the basis of the apparently incomplete history he provided. Dr White and Dr Speldewinde obtained a history from Mr Briggs that he had a back injury in the 1980s when he was a psychiatric nurse from which he fully recovered at the time[27]. It appears that Dr White and Dr Speldewinde were not aware of Mr Briggs’ history of lower back symptoms in the period from 1990 to December 1997.
[27] Exhibit A2, p1 and T116 folio 373, respectively
27. As it appears to me the evidence Mr Briggs gave during these proceedings is unreliable. He claimed that he had difficulty remembering relevant aspects of his lower back condition, especially in relation to symptoms, events and treatments he obtained prior to the claimed work injury in December 1997. Furthermore, his recollection of the progress of symptoms after the claimed injury, over time, was at best sporadic. However, Mr Briggs appeared to have no difficulty remembering aspects of his history that he perceived as beneficial to his case. Whether Mr Briggs was truly unable to remember or whether he was dissembling (as Dr Donsworth concluded) I am unable to determine with certainty, however Mr Briggs’ difficulties giving a full account of his history, his selective recall and his incomplete disclosure point to the latter.
28. On balance, considering the evidence, I am reasonably satisfied that Mr Briggs experienced symptoms in his lower back from time to time prior to 1997. Those symptoms were described as back ache, apparently on the left side. Thus it appears that Mr Briggs had some form of pre-existing lower back complaint or condition prior to the claimed injury in December 1997 that was symptomatic from time to time. I so find. I note in passing that Antoinette Briggs, Mr Briggs’ former wife, stated that she could not recall Mr Briggs “having any complaints of lower back pain of any significance” prior to 1997[28]. Mr and Mrs Briggs were married for 22 years. It is curious that Mrs Briggs failed to recall Mr Briggs injuring his lower back in the 1980s and did not recall him receiving treatment or complaining of low back pain in the 1990s. Mrs Briggs was not called and her stated evidence could not be tested. It carries little weight in the face of concessions made by Mr Briggs and the clinical notes of his treating doctors.
[28] Exhibit A5 pp1-2
29. Mr Briggs asserted in evidence that he had experienced continuing lower back pain from December 1997. That evidence is not consistent with the clinical notes of his treating doctors. Dr Eriksson’s clinical notes from 5 December 1997 reveal a fluctuating suite of variable symptoms in different parts of Mr Briggs’ back. Her notes record these symptoms variously as pain, or an ache, or discomfort on movement. Many of Dr Eriksson’s notes after December 1997 refer only to discomfort at the end of range of movement and include references to symptoms starting while Mr Briggs was sitting at work or symptoms resuming after a period of leave from work. Furthermore, Dr Eriksson’s notes clearly identify increases in alleged symptoms following particular activity or in response to aggravating factors. It appears to me, despite Mr Briggs’ assertions to the contrary, that his alleged lower back symptoms were neither continuous nor of a consistent character over time. Furthermore, at the time Mr Briggs was reporting increased symptoms on activity at work to Dr Eriksson, unbeknown to her, his weekend employment as a psychiatric nurse was ongoing. It is apparent from the clinical notes that Mr Brigg’s lower back symptoms fluctuated over time, and that there were periods when he was substantially symptom-free (in 1998, 2000 and 2001, for example) and his psychological symptoms increased. Furthermore careful consideration of Dr Eriksson’s clinical notes reveals that Mr Briggs’ symptoms were variable in degree and location. Mr Briggs complained of left sciatic pain, thoracic back pain, neck pain, headaches and right side lumbar pain at different times. The mechanism by which such disseminate symptoms may be related to the injury in December 1997 is unclear and is not established as a matter of probability on the evidence before me.
30. The evidence does not establish a physical basis for Mr Briggs’ experience of lower back pain, but it does reveal that Mr Briggs’ symptoms improved in the period from December 1997 to February 1998[29]. Thereafter, Dr Eriksson noted Mr Briggs’ complaints of occasional soreness in March 1998[30], aggravation of back pain following use of a mouse in May 1998[31], recurrence of symptoms on return to work following a period of leave in July 1998[32], and a purported ‘flare up of pain’ following physiotherapy treatment in August 1998[33]. Dr Eriksson’s clinical notes from 2000-2001 are similarly expository.
[29] Exhibit A4, clinical note 25 February 1998 refers
[30] Exhibit A4, clinical note 23 March 1998 refers
[31] Exhibit A4, clinical note 4 May 1998 refers
[32] Exhibit A4, clinical note 20 July 1998 refers
[33] Exhibit A4, clinical note 13 August 1998 refers
31. It is possible, even likely, that Mr Briggs aggravated an underlying and undiagnosed condition in December 1997 which had previously been symptomatic and warranted treatment, but was not fully disclosed to Dr Erikson, among others. Dr Eriksson’s notes reveal that the symptoms he experienced as a result subsided in the months after December 1997, consistent with her initial prognosis (also consistent with Dr Stevenson’s evidence that a soft tissue injury would be expected to resolved in a matter of months following injury). It appears likely that Mr Briggs subsequently suffered further aggravations on activity: for example in July 1998 on returning to work after a period of leave and in August 1998 after physiotherapy treatment. However, in the light of Mr Briggs’ history of lower back problems and psychological stress in relation to his employment it is not established on the evidence before me that any subsequent aggravations were related to anything that occurred in December 1997. Simply, what was claimed was a postural injury that was not the result of an injurious incident involving damage to Mr Briggs’ lumbar spine. There is no evidence of an injury to Mr Briggs’ lumbar spine or the structures in his lower back sufficient to cause pathology or chronic symptoms over a long period (Dr Stevenson). It is to be noted that there is no evidence of organic pathology to explain Mr Briggs’ ongoing symptomatology and complaints of back pain. Furthermore, Mr Briggs was reported to exhibit abnormal illness behaviour (non-organic response) in relation to his lower back symptoms on examination by Mr Duthie Mills, Orthopaedic Surgeon on 9 March 1998[34].
[34] T15 folios 194-195 refer
32. Thus, in the circumstances, it is more likely than not that the increased symptoms of which Mr Briggs complained in July and August 1998, and at various times thereafter, were the result of aggravations that were not related to anything that occurred in December 1997. It is more likely that such symptoms were either the result of recurring aggravations of a pre-existing or underlying condition prior to December 1997, or were somatic symptoms of Mr Briggs’ psychological disorder, or constituted abnormal illness behaviour. In either case, consistent with the assessments of Mr Stuart and Dr Stevenson, I am reasonably satisfied that any symptoms Mr Briggs experienced in his back on or after 8 February 2005 were unrelated to the claimed injury in December 1997.
33. Thus, it can be seen that this is not a case in which a previously asymptomatic condition was rendered symptomatic by activities in employment. Nor is it a case in which there is any organic pathology of physical injury. What can be said is that pain was experienced in the context of employment and that activities, particularly sitting for long periods while working on a computer, increased the sensation of pain and discomfort. It is not for me to determine whether or not the pain and discomfort Mr Briggs experienced in December 1997 was an injury under the Act. Comcare determined that it was. I merely note in passing that Mr Briggs’ history of back pain and injury and his weekend employment as a psychiatric nurse were not disclosed to Comcare or to his treating doctor or to the medical experts who examined him. Whether a different diagnosis, course of treatment or compensation outcome would have resulted from frank disclosure of those facts is a matter of conjecture, although it appears likely from this distance.
34. In sum I am not satisfied that Mr Briggs’ claimed symptoms of pain and any related incapacity for work or medical treatment expenses from 5 February 2005 are the result of the accepted injury in December 1997.
35. It follows that the decision under review concerning compensation for incapacity and medical treatment expenses in relation to Mr Briggs’ accepted compensable injury will be affirmed.
decision
36. The decisions under review are affirmed.
I certify that the 36 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr S. Webb, Member
Signed: .......(Peter Strauch)........................................
AssociateDate of Hearing 55-7 March 2007
Date of Decision 13 April 2007
Counsel for the Applicant Graeme Lunney
Solicitor for the Applicant Pamela Coward & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent Lorraine Walker
Solicitor for the Respondent Sparke Helmore
0
3
0