Callaghan and Telstra Corporation Limited - [2006] AATA 1079

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 1079
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Nº W2005/317, W2006/184
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

Re: ALISON CALLAGHAN
Applicant
And:TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
Respondent

DECISION
Tribunal: G.D. Friedman, Senior Member
Dr D. Weerasooriya, Member

Date:13 December 2006
Place:Perth

Decision: The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.
(sgd) G.D. Friedman
Senior Member

1.      Alison Callaghan was born on 24 November 1978. She joined the respondent in October 2002 as a temporary employee working as a credit consultant and became a permanent officer on 16 January 2003. On 21 May 2004 she submitted an incident report in which she reported intense pain in her hands, wrists and shoulders. On 25 November 2004 she lodged a claim for compensation arising from the pain, which she claimed was caused by her duties that involved prolonged keyboard entry. The respondent disagreed, and stated that any upper limb pain was unrelated to her employment.
ISSUE
2.      The issue before the Tribunal is whether Ms Callaghan was suffering from an injury, and if so, whether the injury was related to her employment with the respondent.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE SYMPTOMS CLAIMED BY MS CALLAGHAN?
3.        Ms Callaghan told the Tribunal that her duties involved a substantial amount of keyboard work, and often she engaged in keyboard activities for more than 7 hours per day with few breaks. She said that in December 2003/January 2004 she noticed a slight discomfort in her wrists and hands, and the symptoms seemed to increase in about April 2004 when smaller keyboards were installed. Ms Callaghan stated that she was placed on light duties until June 2004, during which she performed no keyboard duties.
4.        Ms Callaghan said that changes were made to her working conditions following a workplace assessment and on 15 June 2004 she commenced a graduated return to work program. She stated that the new keyboards contained fewer function keys and therefore required more keystrokes than the superseded keyboards. She said that after using the new keyboard her pain was intense and her hands were sometimes cold. She stated that she told her supervisor about the pain and undertook tests arranged by her general practitioner. These were inconclusive, and she was placed on light duties and was taking anti-inflammatory medication to ease the pain. She travelled overseas during annual leave between 25 June 2004 and 29 July 2004 and returned to normal duty on 2 August 2004. Ms Callaghan said that most pain occurred at night, but in September 2004 the severe pain returned, and she was again placed on light duties until 25 November 2004, when her general practitioner determined that she was unfit for any work, and she has not returned since then.
5.        Ms Callaghan explained that she has attempted unsuccessfully to find employment. She noted that her general practitioner has specified no keyboard, writing or repetitive work, so positions with Telstra shops were not appropriate. She stated that in her daily life she tries to avoid any activity that…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Callaghan and Telstra Corporation Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] AATA 1079
Decision Date: 13 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Callaghan filed a claim against Telstra Corporation Limited for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, alleging pain in his hands, wrists, and shoulders as a result of his duties involving keyboard work. The dispute was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The primary legal issues that the AAT had to address were whether Callaghan's condition was an ailment as defined by the Act and whether Telstra Corporation Limited was liable for compensation under the legislation.

The AAT examined the relevant statutory provisions, specifically sections 4(1) and 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The tribunal referred to previous cases such as Goudie v Department of Defence and Re Musumici and Department of Health (NT), which provided guidance on the interpretation of the term "ailment" in the context of workplace injuries. Additionally, the AAT considered the case of Re Woolley and Comcare, which dealt with similar issues of compensation for pain and discomfort arising from repetitive strain injuries. The tribunal assessed Callaghan's evidence and medical reports to determine if his condition met the criteria for an ailment under the Act.

The AAT found that Callaghan's symptoms did not constitute an ailment as defined by the legislation, primarily because they did not meet the threshold of being a disease, bodily injury, or other impairing condition that had a significant impact on his ability to work. The tribunal also considered the nature of Callaghan's duties and the evidence regarding the ergonomics of his workstation. Consequently, the AAT concluded that Telstra Corporation Limited was not liable for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The tribunal dismissed Callaghan's claim.

Orders