Canute and Comcare

[2004] AATA 627

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 627

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2003/700

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		KENNETH JOHN CANUTE

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member

Dr P D Lynch, Member

Date              21 June 2004

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

..............................................

Ms S M Bullock     
  Presiding Member

COMPENSATION – Injuries resulting in permanent impairment – Provision for further payment of compensation for subsequent increase in degree of permanent impairment of employee if increase is 10 per cent or more

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 24, 25, 27

Comcare and Mihajlovic (2000) 97 FCR 304
Comcare v Roser (2003) 127 FCR 155;
Re Laven and Comcare (2003) 76 ALD 253
Comcare v Van Grinsven (2002) FCAFC 87; 68 ALD 87
Comcare v Amorebieta (1996) 66 FCR 83
Martin v Australian Postal Corporation (1999) 29 AAR 420
Power v Comcare (1998) 89 FCR 514

REASONS FOR DECISION

21 June 2004

  Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member

          Dr P D Lynch, Member

1.    Mr Kenneth John Canute, the Applicant, was working as a civilian employee with the Department of Defence.  Mr Canute claims that during the course of his employment, he suffered injury to his back on two occasions.  Mr Canute is claiming whole person impairment, beyond the award which he received by way of a decision made on 9 February 2000 (T9).  A determination was made on 29 November 2002, denying Mr Canute’s application for a further lump sum compensation payment (T22).  Upon reconsideration on 4 April 2003, the determination was affirmed (T24).

2. Mr Canute has made an application for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The matter was heard on 19 April 2004, resuming on 20 April 2004. Mr Canute was represented by Mr L Grey of Counsel and the Respondent, Comcare, was represented by Mr G Johnson of Counsel. Mr Canute provided oral evidence to the Tribunal. Evidence was also provided by Dr P Morse, Consultant Psychiatrist and Dr J Champion, Consultant Psychiatrist. Documents were lodged and taken into evidence pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“T Documents”, T1-24) and a number of exhibits, which are listed in Schedule 1 to this decision.

issues

3. At issue in this matter is whether the Applicant has a further entitlement to compensation for whole person impairment beyond that awarded on 9 February 2000 for Mr Canute’s work-related injury to his back, pursuant to sections 24, 25 and 27 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”).  Involved in making a determination in this matter also requires consideration of whether or not there is any psychological sequelae of the work-related injury to Mr Canute’s back.

legislative context

4. A decision in this matter requires the application of the relevant provisions of the Act.

5. Section 24 of the Act refers to compensation…