Coates and Telstra Corporation Limited
[2003] AATA 1094
•31 October 2003
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 1094
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) N2001/519
) N2002/1484
Nos N2003/238
GENERAL ADMINSTRATIVE DIVISION ) N2003/239
N2003/240
N2003/241Re Ian Brian Coates Applicant
And
Telstra Corporation Limited
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member
Dr J D Campbell, MemberDate31 October 2003
PlaceSydney
Decision Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the decisions under review are affirmed. ..............................................
Ms S M Bullock
Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS
Worker’s Compensation - spondylolisthesis - aggravation
LEGISLATION
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4, 14, 16, 19
REASONS FOR DECISION
31 October 2003 Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member Dr J D Campbell, Member
1. This is an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) by the Applicant, Mr Ian Coates, in relation to six reviewable decisions made by the Respondent, Telstra Corporation Limited, dated:
i.20 February 2001 (N2001/519, T76, T77), which affirmed a determination dated 3 November 2000 (N2001/519, T68, T69) that the Respondent is not liable to pay compensation in respect of musculo-ligamentous strain injury to the lumbosacral spine on and from 3 November 2000. Liability had previously been accepted for this condition on 30 September 1996 (N2001/519, T51).
ii.1 August 2002 (N2002/1484, T10, T11), which affirmed a determination dated 17 June 2002 (N2002/1484, T5, T6) that the Respondent was no longer required to pay compensation in respect of aggravation of an underlying disorder of spondylolisthesis. Liability for this condition was initially accepted on 26 August 1994 but ceased on 31 January 1995.
iii.20 January 2003 (N2003/238, T11, T12), which affirmed a determination dated 8 November 2002 (N2003/238, T7, T8) that the Respondent was not liable to pay compensation in respect of medical treatment expenses or incapacity payments on and from 22 June 1979 for the condition of sprain of the Applicant’s middle back which occurred on 21 June 1979. A claim form in respect of the middle back sprain was lodged on 4 October 2002 (N2003/238, T5) and an incident report was made dated 21 June 1979 (N2003/238, T3).
iv.20 January 2003 (N2003/239, T11, T12), which affirmed a determination dated 8 November 2002 (N2003/239, T7, T8), that the Respondent was not liable to pay compensation in respect of a claim for sprain of the lower back which occurred on 12 December 1983 and for which a claim was lodged dated 4 October 2002 (N2003/239, T5).
v.20 January 2003 (N2003/240, T11, T12), which affirmed a determination dated 8 November 2002 (N2003/240, T7, T8), that the Respondent was not liable to pay compensation for a claim for bruising of the hip and thigh arising out of an incident on 14 August 1982 for which a claim form was lodged on 4 October 2002 (N2003/240, T5).
vi.20 January 2003 (N2003/241, T11, T12), which affirmed a determination dated 8 November 2002 (N2003/241, T7, T8), that the Respondent was not liable to pay compensation in respect of “back injury to lower portion” alleged to have occurred on 7 March 1977 and for which a claim was submitted dated 4 October 2002 (N2003/241, T5).
2. A Hearing was held before the Tribunal in Sydney on 28 February 2003. The Applicant was self-represented. The Respondent was represented by Mr B Kelly of Counsel. Documents were lodged and taken into evidence pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“T-Documents”: N2001/519, T1-T78; N2002/484, T1-T11; N2003/238, T1-T12; N2003/239, T1-T12; N2003/240, T1-12; N2003/241, T1-T12). The following exhibits were also taken into evidence.
Exhibit
Description
Date
A1
Report of Dr J P H Stephen, Orthopaedic Surgeon
21 November 2001
A2
Report of Dr S Tan, Orthopaedic Surgeon
31 January 2003
R1
Respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions
19 February 2003
R2
Report of Professor R Mitchell, Surgeon
28 June 2001
R3
Report of Professor R Mitchell, Surgeon
22 January 2003
ISSUES
3. The issues in this matter relate to whether or not the Respondent is liable to pay compensation, including medical expenses, to Mr Coates in respect of injuries which occurred in the course of his employment with Telstra in 1977, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1994 and 1996.
LEGISLATION
4. A decision in this matter requires consideration of the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”).
5. Section 4 of the Act deals with interpretation and of the specific relevance to this matter is the definition of “injury” under subsection 4(1) of the Act:
“4 Interpretation
(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
…
injury means:
(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b)an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, being a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment; or
(c)an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment), being an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
but does not include any such disease, injury or aggravation suffered by an employee as a result of reasonable disciplinary action taken against the employee or failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with his or her employment.”
6. Section 14 of the Act deals with compensation for injuries and as relevant states:
“14 Compensation for injuries
(1) Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.
(2) Compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is intentionally self-inflicted.
(3) Compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is caused by the serious and wilful misconduct of the employee but is not intentionally self-inflicted, unless the injury results in death, or serious and permanent impairment.”
7. Section 16 of the Act deals with compensation in respect of medical expenses and as relevant states:
“16 Compensation in respect of medical expenses etc.
(1)Where an employee suffers an injury, Comcare is liable to pay, in respect of the cost of medical treatment obtained in relation to the injury (being treatment that it was reasonable for the employee to obtain in the circumstances), compensation of such amount as Comcare determines is appropriate to that medical treatment.
(2)Subsection (1) applies whether or not the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (1), the cost of medical treatment shall, in a case where the treatment involves the supply, replacement or repair of property used by the employee, be deemed to include any fees or charges paid or payable by the employee to a legally qualified medical practitioner or dentist or other qualified person for a consultation, examination, prescription or other service reasonably required in connection with that supply, replacement or repair.
(4)An amount of compensation payable by Comcare under subsection (1) is payable:
(a) to, or in accordance with the directions of, the employee;
(b)if the employee dies before the compensation is paid and without having paid the cost referred to in subsection (1) and another person, not being the legal personal representative of the employee, has paid that cost—to that other person; or
(c)if that cost has not been paid and the employee, or the legal personal representative of the employee, does not make a claim for the compensation—to the person to whom that cost is payable.
(5)Where a person is liable to pay any cost referred to in subsection (1), any amount paid under subsection (4) to the person to whom that cost is payable is, to the extent of the payment, a discharge of the liability of the first-mentioned person.
…”
8. Section 19 of the Act deals with compensation for injuries resulting in incapacity.
evidence of mr ian brian coates
9. Mr Coates told the Tribunal that he attended Bowral High School to Year 10, attaining the School Certificate and leaving school in 1974. He commenced work at Telstra on 13 January 1975. Initially Mr Coates attended a training school in Goulburn, undertaking six months training as a linesman. Mr Coates worked for six months in Canberra undertaking installations and fault repair work.
10. In 1976 or 1977, Mr Coates undertook what he referred to as “conduit work” which involved laying conduit in trenches. This required the operation of jackhammers. In 1978, Mr Coates worked for six months in a different crew operating small “trench-digger” machines. He was in this small work gang until 1979, then undertook a “cable-joining course” for six weeks in North Strathfield. Following this training, Mr Coates then worked in Bowral undertaking cable-joining work until he commenced working in the office in the 1980’s. In 1984, Mr Coates undertook clerical duties and stores work at Telstra’s Depot in Bowral. In 1987, he worked as a supervisor at the Bowral Depot both in the field and in the office. Mr Coates commented that there was not a great deal of manual work, mainly administration. In 1998, Mr Coates accepted a voluntary redundancy package. Since that time he has undertaken work in various fields including in the communications field, trying to purchase a swimming pool maintenance business, attempting to contract back to Telstra and trying to set up a jumping castle business.
11. Since February 2002, Mr Coates has undertaken a Small Business course which was of 18 months duration. He told the Tribunal that he is struggling with the course work but hopes eventually to obtain a Certificate in Business Management. Currently, Mr Coates is in receipt of a Newstart Allowance.
12. Mr Coates provided evidence to the Tribunal in relation to each of his applications for review.
N2003/241: The 1977 Incident
13. On 7 March 1977, Mr Coates alleged an incident occurred when he sustained injury to his back as a result of lifting and loading conduit onto a truck. Mr Coates submitted an Incident Report about this event on 29 March 1977 (N2003/241, T3), which recorded that he had no time off work. Mr Coates lodged a claim form for the back strain he experienced on 4 October 2002. Mr Coates indicated he obtained no medical treatment and the Incident Report indicated there were no medical expenses and no absence from work beyond the day of the injury.
14. In Mr Coates’ letter requesting a reconsideration (N2003/241, T9) Mr Coates noted that medical treatment may not have been sought immediately and that the Incident Report was only an initial report. He did not however provide any details of any medical treatment he subsequently required as a result of this incident.
N2003/238: The 1979 Incident
15. Mr Coates described undertaking a work-related training course in Goulburn. It was raining and as he was attempting to enter his car, he recalled experiencing severe pain in the middle of his back. Mr Coates could not get into the car. He did not recall hitting any part of his body. After about five minutes, a Senior Instructor came over to him and helped him out of the car and into the office. Mr Coates was subsequently taken to Goulburn Hospital where he had x-rays taken and pain-killers administered. Mr Coates was told to take the rest of the week off. He believed that he took about three or four days off work. He did try to attend the training college after the hospital, intending to stay, but was told to go home. Mr Coates stated that he may have had someone drive him home but he was not sure. The next day he consulted Dr Patch or Dr Tinny. He stated that he had no pain, but the training school would not take him for a few days. Mr Coates stated he did not have any other treatment such as physiotherapy. He did not have any particular problems after that.
16. Mr Coates stated that his supervisor completed the incident form (N2003/238, T3), based on what Mr Coates told him. He believed he would have told the supervisor that it was his middle back, which was effected. When Mr Coates returned to work it was with the doctor’s clearance and there were no further problems.
17. Mr Coates told the Tribunal he wished to obtain medical treatment expenses from the Respondent and in his letter of 15 December 2002 to the Reconsideration Officer of the Respondent he noted:
“…Medical treatment may not have been sought immediately as stated on the incident report form, but the report form is that, an initial report form filled out as soon as possible after the incident and does not necessarily relate to medical treatment that may have been requested after that date. All the Statement of Reasons reflect the same thoughts, either no medical treatment was sought or absence from work occurred, but as stated before, these forms are filled out quickly after the incident has occurred and may not reflect a true picture” (N2003/238, T9, p47)
18. The actual Incident Report completed on 21 June 1979 (N2003/238, T3, p12) refers to Mr Coates slipping on wet concrete and falling.
N2003/240: The 1982 Incident
19. Mr Coates completed an Accident Report on 16 August 1982 (N2003/240, T3), detailing that the motor vehicle he was driving had collided with a wombat. Mr Coates stated that he sustained bruising to his hip and thigh but no injury to his back. He had no time off work and did not seek medical attention. Mr Coates stated that he may not have gone to hospital and his supervisor might not have been at work at that time.
N2003/239: The 1983 Incident
20. On 12 December 1983, Mr Coates was back at Goulburn. He was involved in fault finding activities which included reaching down to pull cables out of trenches. Mr Coates recalled experiencing a sharp pain in his back. He does not recall much more about this incident. He did not recall going to the doctor, but does remember reporting experiencing pain in his back. An undated Incident Report (N2003/239, T3) indicates that Mr Coates sprained his lower back when reaching into a trench to recover a cable. Mr Coates also could not recall ceasing work for any period of time, but believed he continued working the next day. He stated that he completely recovered from this incident.
N2002/1484: The 1994 Incident
21. Mr Coates told the Tribunal that on 28 April 1994, he was working at the Telstra Depot in Bowral. He was kneeling down, leaning forward to retrieve some files from a safe or filing cabinet. The next thing he recalled was lying on the floor unable to move. There were two other people in the room who came to his assistance. Mr Coates was lifted up, an ambulance was called, he was eventually lifted onto a mobile bed and was taken to Bowral Hospital where he was given pain-killers. He was unable to undress or walk. Mr Coates remained in Casualty until the pain-killers took effect and his wife came to collect him. The pain that evening became worse and his general practitioner was called to the house. Mr Coates recalled being prescribed stronger medication. Mr Coates was given a period of one week off work. At home, he was mainly in bed. He commenced physiotherapy about three days later for a period of one week, gradually reducing that until January 1995. Mr Coates was prescribed “Rivotril” as a muscle relaxant. His back gradually improved and if painful, he would take Panadeine Forte medication.
22. Mr Coates was referred to a medical certificate from Dr C H Khoo, dated 3 June 1994 (N2001/519, T18, p39) which restricted work to two hours per day, five days per week, with instructions to avoid heavy lifting/bending and to undertake mainly clerical work with a graduated increase in duties and hours subject to review. Mr Coates stated that he was provided with a return to work program.
23. Before 1994, Mr Coates noted that he was a supervisor at work and only out in the field occasionally. Mr Coates would rarely undertake physical activity and that was the case in 1994, with his duties mainly being clerical. Mr Coates stated that he did not do any driving however and stayed in the office. He stated that he was not actually supervising staff, only client work and the paperwork was the same as prior to the accident subject to this specific review.
24. With the work program, Mr Coates’ hours were increased to three hours per day with restrictions on 13 June 1994 (N2001/519, T20, p41) and by 24 July 1994, he was recommended by Dr Khoo to work four to five hours per day, five days per week. Dr Khoo noted that Mr Coates’ condition was improving (N2001/519, T23). Mr Coates noted he would attend work after physiotherapy sessions. On 27 September 1994, Mr Coates’ hours increased to five to six hours per day (N2001/519, T35) and on 2 December 1994, Dr Khoo recommended that from 1 December 1994, Mr Coates work full hours, eight hours per day, five days per week, avoiding heavy lifting and frequent bending according to his pain threshold (N2001/519, T44). On 30 January 1995 Mr Coates was certified by Dr Khoo to be able to return to normal duties (N2001/519, T46), which he undertook in a supervisory role. Mr Coates stated that he could not undertake manual duties. He had no further time off work until 1996, however Mr Coates continued to do a home program of exercises. He was working full time by February 1995, working a nine day fortnight, eight hours and ten minutes per day.
25. Mr Coates consulted Dr J P H Stephen in June 1994. He understood that Dr Stephen’s opinion was that Mr Coates had aggravated a pre-existing disc problem when he bent into the safe.
N2001/519: The 1996 Incident
26. Mr Coates told the Tribunal that on 18 September 1996, he was bending forwards looking for files in the top drawer of a filing cabinet which was at chest height, when he experienced pain in his lower back.. Mr Coates could not straighten up and was helped to sit down by a colleague. He later completed an incident report (N2001/519, T47) on 18 September 1996. Mr Coates described sitting still for approximately one hour and was then assisted to walk to lunch. Mr Coates stated that he could not straighten up in the lunchroom. Mr Coates was then assisted to his car. He drove to the physiotherapist’s rooms to make an appointment and then to his doctor’s surgery where he was given a medical certificate. Mr Coates was told to take “Panadeine Forte”.. No x-rays were ordered and he drove home. At 7.00pm that evening, Mr Coates had physiotherapy treatment, which he continued every second day for a fortnight. Mr Coates returned to work after one week with liability being accepted for musculo-ligamentous strain of the lumbar spine. There was no change to Mr Coates’ duties and he continued to work a nine day fortnight. He was provided exercises to undertake at home and he continued hydrotherapy for some time.
27. Between 18 September 1996 and 23 September 1996, Dr Khoo certified Mr Coates as being unfit following his leaning forward and then standing up feeling pain in his lower back (2001/519, T49). At that time Mr Coates had physiotherapy for one week with no change to his duties. Mr Coates worked within his capabilities although he was not officially in a designated position, eventually taking a voluntary redundancy package in 1998.
28. After Mr Coates left Telstra, he consulted Dr Hughes on 18 July 2000 and told him that after 1994, and in fact in 1996, he experienced a recurrence of low back pain when he reached upwards when standing (N2001/519, T62, pp104, 105). Mr Coates did not recall telling Dr Hughes he had experienced six occurrences of low back pain in 2000. He did recall telling Dr Hughes he had intermittent low back pain every month or so. Mr Coates noted that he did tell Dr Hughes that he did not have severe back pain and at the time of his examination, he recalled telling Dr Hughes that he had no pain present at all.
Current Circumstances
29. Concerning Mr Coates’ current situation, he stated that he is not on any medication. He will only take medication, such as Panadeine Forte, if he really needs it and this is not often. Mr Coates further explained that he had not taken medication for the past two months. He noted that medication does upset his stomach. On his own initiative, Mr Coates undertakes hydrotherapy exercises in a pool. His back is “pretty good”, at the moment. Mr Coates has some discomfort in the morning when he gets up. He has to be careful what he does, so as to not to strain his back. Later in evidence, Mr Coates stated that there is pain present every day.
30. In the past, Mr Coates used to play sport such as squash, volleyball and tennis and this was up until about 1994. He ceased rugby league when aged 11 or 12 years. Mr Coates stated that he is now unable to undertake manual work, but saw his career path moving away from that type of work and undertaking managerial positions..
31. Prior to 1994, Mr Coates described having a pain-free life. He agreed with a statement he wrote to the GIO Insurance Company dated 25 January 2001 that:
“…the back injuries I experienced prior to 1994, which were all work-related, I fully recovered from and was able to return to a full and active lifestyle....” (N2001/519, T73, p121).
32. Mr Coates noted that he was undertaking full duties in early 1995, after his 1994 work injury. Mr Coates undertakes walks, but has put on weight. He noted that he had a car accident in 1975.
33. After accepting a voluntary redundancy in 1998, Mr Coates stated that the work he did was not heavy work, for example, he did quotation work in the field of communications. Mr Coates stated that his current back problem is an aggravation of Telstra work injuries and that the effects of the injuries have worsened.
34. Considering Mr Coates’ capabilities around his home, he stated that he undertakes the Business Course two nights per week. He tapes the lectures then writes his notes up after the lecture. Mr Coates helps clean up the house, including making the beds. He does the clothes washing and hangs the wet washing out. Mrs Coates cooks for the house. Mr Coates is able to drive a motor vehicle but not for long periods. He explained that he tries to walk one kilometre every day. Mr Coates used to ride a pushbike but does not do that any longer. He mows the lawns on a sit-on lawn mower. Mr Coates in fact tries very hard to be as active as he can.
evidence of dr j p h stephen, orthopaedic surgeon
35. The Tribunal had available to it reports from Dr Stephen dated 22 June 1994 (N2001/519, T22) and 21 November 2001 (Exhibit A1). In Dr Stephen’s initial report to Mr Coates’ General Practitioner, Dr M Khoo, he opined that Mr Coates’ symptoms are not originating from spondylolisthesis, but from the disc above where there was radiological evidence of a minor prolapse. Dr Stephen’s report was undertaken in the context that Mr Coates had the onset of sharp stabbing pain to his lumbosacral spine whilst kneeling and going through his filing cabinet. Dr Stephen noted earlier back problems in 1979 when Mr Coates slipped getting into his car and in 1983 when he collided with a wombat on the way to work. At the time Dr Stephen examined Mr Coates in June 1994, Dr Stephen reported that Mr Coates was improving and would reasonably be expected to continue to do so. Dr Stephen anticipated that it would take several weeks for Mr Coates to get back to full-time work.
36. In his report dated 21 November 2001, Dr Stephen had modified his view opining that:
“… it is impossible to say whether this pain emanates from his spondylolisthesis or from the level above where he has some evidence of disc degeneration and where he had evidence of a postero-lateral right sided bulge” (Exhibit A1, p2).
37. Dr Stephen reported that there were no physical signs of note on examination in November 2001. Mr Coates had a normal posture, no muscle wasting and a completely full range of lumbar movement. He could walk on heel and tip-toe without difficulty. There was no localised tenderness and straight leg raising on each side was 70 degrees and painless. Dr Stephen further reported there were no neurological signs in the lower limbs. The 1994 CT scans indicated “spondylolytic spondylolisthesis” with a three millimetre slip and a pathological central and right-sided L4/5 disc bulge. Dr Stephen noted Mr Coates was continuing to have mechanical low lumbar back ache mostly to a mild degree, but worsened by physical activity and sometimes punctuated by severe attacks.
38. Dr Stephen noted that Mr Coates had some back symptoms prior to the incident of 28 April 1994 and he almost certainly had a pre-existing retrolisthesis of L4 on L5, with some disc damage and “the trivial incident of 28 April 1994 was probably the last straw in terms of production of his acute pain” (Exhibit A1, p2).
39. Dr Stephen concluded that it was likely that Mr Coates’ pain would have occurred whether he was at work or not and that accordingly, the incident of 28 April 1994 probably did not have significant relationship to his current condition.
evidence of dr s tan, orthopaedic surgeon
40. Dr Tan provided a report to General Practitioner, Dr C Cawthorne, dated 31 January 2003 (Exhibit A2). Dr Tan noted that Mr Coates had tenderness in the lower spine and some pain with extension and lateral flexion. The range of movement was satisfactory in the lumbar spine with a normal neurological examination. There were no signs of neuromeningeal irritation. Dr Tan reported that Mr Coates was having mechanical back pain but he could not determine if the pain was due to spondylolisthesis or to disc disease proximal to this.
evidence of professor r mitchell, surgeon
41. Professor Mitchell provided two reports dated 28 June 2001 (Exhibit R2) and 22 January 2003 (Exhibit R3).
42. In his first report of 28 June 2001, Professor Mitchell noted incidents to Mr Coate’s low back in 1977, 1979, 1982, 1994 and 1996. At the time of examination, Professor Mitchell reported that Mr Coates was not working at all and was experiencing attacks of sudden sharp pain in the lower back varying from a twinge to sharp pain. Professor Mitchell further reported that Mr Coates cannot do much normal work without low lumbar pain. Mr Coates would undertake light duties around the house and tried to keep fit. He mows the lawns, does not undertake gardening and wears a lumbar support.
43. Professor Mitchell noted that Mr Coates moved about freely with no obvious discomfort. His cervical spine had a full range of flexibility in all directions with no discomfort. His thoracic spine was normal to clinical examination with no local tenderness or deformity. In relation to Mr Coates’ lumbar spine, he had flattened lumbar lordosis with a slight palpable step at the L5/S1 level, but no significant local tenderness over the spinous processes. Professor Mitchell noted that these was no muscle spasm and a good range of forward flexion reaching to a point where Mr Coates’ fingertips reached ten inches above the floor. Mr Coates had reasonable lateral flexion. His extension was limited compared to the normal. Straight leg raising was free on both sides to 80 degrees when he did complain of some low back discomfort. There was no muscle wasting of the lower limbs and reasonable muscle development.
44. Professor Mitchell opined that Mr Coates has a first degree spondylolisthesis with a small degree of slippage due to a defect in the pars interarticularis of the L5 lumbar vertebra. Professor Mitchell noted it is a fairly common condition that is thought to be due to stress fractures of the lumbar spine in childhood or adolescence and is quite frequently symptomless. In Mr Coates’ case, he had aggravation to his spondylolisthesis as a result of the activities he was undertaking whilst working for Telstra. Professor Mitchell reported that it is typical of this condition that attacks of pain continue to occur, but that they are only of short duration providing early management with physiotherapy and hydrotherapy can be undertaken. It is important for Mr Coates to keep his muscles strong and Professor Mitchell opined that his prognosis should be good.
45. Professor Mitchell further opined that Mr Coates had several episodes of pain emanating from his spondylolisthesis, particularly in 1994, 1996 and 1998. During these periods, Mr Coates had suffered aggravations to his back in unusual positions. He has no leg pain which is one of the complications which can occur from slippage of the vertebra. There was no evidence of radiculopathy in Professor Mitchell’s examination. Accordingly, Professor Mitchell concluded that Mr Coates was experiencing attacks of back pain due to instability of his L5/S1 disc area due to defects in the pars interarticularis allowing extra stresses on the disc.
46. Professor Mitchell considered that the aggravations Mr Coates had experienced at Telstra were temporary and had passed. At the time of experiencing these problems, there was no particular requirement for medication or treatment. Professor Mitchell opined that Mr Coates may experience further attacks of pain but with hydrotherapy and short periods of physiotherapy, Mr Coates should not suffer any serious complications. It is unusual at Mr Coates’ age for spondylolisthesis to slip further. Professor Mitchell concluded that Mr Coates is not entitled to any ongoing medical treatment costs now. Professor Mitchell further concluded that the attacks of low back pain are due to Mr Coates’ spondylolisthesis which is an underlying condition not caused by his work at Telstra. In his second report dated 22 January 2003, Professor Mitchell confirmed his earlier opinion. Professor Mitchell concluded that he did not consider the instances when working for Telstra were other than minor low back strains with temporary aggravation of his spondylolisthesis which is longstanding and not caused by the incidents described when working for Telstra.
47. Professor Mitchell opined that the spondylolisthesis had not been materially contributed to by Mr Coates’ employment for Telstra. This is based on the evidence of the episodes of injury Mr Coates described and there was no evidence that the defects in the pars interarticularis of the L5 vertebra occurred in these injuries. Mr Coates’ incapacity for employment is due to spondylolisthesis and not due to any permanent changes induced by his episodes while working for Telstra. The effects of the condition are likely to continue but if Mr Coates keeps his muscles in good condition and is generally fit, he would be suitable for employment which did not involve lifting or bending. Mr Coates’ prognosis is somewhat doubtful, but many patients with this type of spondylolisthesis go through life without any serious problems.
evidence of dr j olsen, occupational, health and safety and rehabilitation consultant
48. Dr Olsen provided a report dated 10 August 1994 (N2001/519, T30). Dr Olsen referred to Mr Coates experiencing low back pain at work on 28 April 1994 and opined that the onset of that back pain was not the first. Dr Olsen noted a history of back pain dating back to around 1977. There were subsequent reports of back pain in 1979 when Mr Coates was getting into his car. Dr Olsen reported that Mr Coates made a good recovery and suffered no further back pain until 1982 when he hit a wombat while driving. There was no time required off work and since that time, although Dr Olsen understood Mr Coates had occasional back pain. Dr Olsen reviewed x-rays from Bowral and District Hospital of 28 April 1994, which indicated spondylolisthesis with a defective pars interarticularis. CT scans undertaken on 26 May 1994, indicated the pars interarticularis defect in addition to spondylolisthesis. There was also disc bulging at L4/5 and thus Dr Olsen agreed with Dr Stephen’s comments that there was a degree of protrusion at L4/5 level.
49. Dr Olsen noted that although there is a disc bulge or protrusion at L4/5, he differed in his opinion to that of Dr Stephen in that Dr Olsen believes that the pain Mr Coates experiences is coming from his spondylolisthesis. The cause of the pain was in all likelihood the fact that the level is potentially unstable. Mr Coates’ history is consistent with underlying spondylolisthesis which is by nature constitutional and a developmental defect. It is Dr Olsen’s opinion that the disc protrusion at the level above the spondylolisthesis is in fact due to the destabilising effect of the spondylolisthesis at the level below. The episode of pain described in April 1994 was acute and while Dr Olsen referred to it as a very minor event, the consequences for Mr Coates were quite significant.
50. Dr Olsen opined that the 28 April 1994 incident provided a work-related contribution, not by contraction or acceleration, but rather by aggravation of the underlying disorder of spondylolisthesis. Dr Olsen opined that there was no doubt that Mr Coates would be capable of gradually increasing his work presence and that the prognosis was good. Dr Olsen reported that spondylolisthesis almost invariably becomes painful although mostly of a fluctuating and recurrent nature which would undoubtedly be the case for Mr Coates. However, Dr Olsen concluded that Mr Coates would be able to increase his hours to normal hours within the next two months of his report. Dr Olsen noted that there will be recurrences of pain from time to time, but these however “should not automatically be taken to be compensable or work related as the underlying condition is not. When he is reasonably painfree I would consider the aggravation to cease. This can be expected to occur in the next 8-16 weeks” (N2001/519, T30, p56).
evidence of dr l hughes, consultant orthopaedic surgeon
51. Dr Hughes provided a report dated 21 July 2000 (N2001/519, T62). Dr Hughes noted episodes of back pain in 1977, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1994 and 1996. Dr Hughes reported that since leaving Telstra in June 1998, Mr Coates has experienced intermittent low back pain lasting a short time. At the time of Dr Hughes’ examination of Mr Coates on 18 July 2000, Mr Coates had had no back pain for the past two weeks. Intermittent back pain was reported by Mr Coates every month or so, lasting one day to one week.
52. On examination, Dr Hughes noted that Mr Coates walked and moved normally without any apparent discomfort and used his lumbar spine freely in the examination room and when getting on and off the examination couch. Mr Coates demonstrated a full, painless range of lumbar spine movements, being able to touch his toes on forward lumbar flexion with his outstretched fingertips without any tilt of the lumbar spine or spasm of the sacrospinalis muscles. Lateral lumbar flexion and extension were unrestricted and painless. Straight leg raising was full and painless on both sides and neurological examination of the lower limbs was normal. There was no back tenderness present, Dr Hughes reported. From x-rays dated 28 April 1994 and 1 October 1998, there was reported a mild grade 1 spondylolisthesis at the L5/S1 level with defects in the pars interarticularis and slight narrowing of the L4/5 disc space, indicating a possible degenerative disc lesion there.
53. Dr Hughes opined that any back pain which Mr Coates experienced in the past is due to the spondylolisthesis at the L5/S1 level and/or a mild degenerative disc lesion in his lumbar spine. In so opining, Dr Hughes noted that spondylolisthesis is a condition which it is generally agreed develops in childhood due to a stress fracture. The condition invariably results in intermittent low back pain throughout life and can be temporarily aggravated by a lifting strain.
54. At the time of examination, Dr Hughes did not consider Mr Coates was suffering from any injury and any aggravation caused by his previous work activities had resolved. There was no pain or disability at that time and Dr Hughes confirmed that Mr Coates is likely to experience episodes of low back pain in the future due to the underlying condition. He opined that Mr Coates is fit for his previous work at Telstra. Mr Coates’ employment has only contributed to the temporary aggravation of the underlying spondylolisthesis condition, Dr Hughes further opined he should avoid heavy lifting and the only treatment recommended was a back exercise program.
SUBMISSIONS
55. Mr Coates asked the Tribunal to understand that it was hard for him to remember events and incidents so long ago and that he might be somewhat inaccurate in some of his evidence but he was trying to give the best evidence he could.
56. Mr Coates submitted that Dr Hughes and Professor Mitchell were consistent in their views that he has had spondylolisthesis from childhood. He submitted that their opinions are speculative concerning him having a constitutional problem.
57. Mr Coates submitted that Dr Tan has reported that his opinion does not differ from that of Dr Stephen, and that is that Mr Coates’ low back condition stems from disc protrusion. Dr Tan had also opined that Mr Coates definitely suffers from mechanical back pain, as does Dr Stephen.
58. Mr Coates contention is that the prior injuries to his 1994 injury at Telstra would have contributed to his disc problem but noted that there was no significant back pain prior to 1994, and he always recovered until the experience in 1994 at Telstra. It is Mr Coates’ further submission that after the 1994 work injury at Telstra he was experiencing greater pain. Mr Coates has submitted that he has always tried to adopt as normal a life as possible and taken the advice of his then General Practitioner, Dr Khoo, and Dr Stephen to try and maintain his general fitness.
59. Mr Coates stated that he did not like being on long-term medication and preferred other treatment modalities such as physiotherapy or hydrotherapy. It is Mr Coates contention that the 1994 work incident ended his career. When he returned to work in early 1995 to full duties, he was not given his former position, but given projects. While Mr Coates acknowledged that he had accepted voluntary redundancy, he submitted that it was virtually forced on him. He took a decision that an entry of a voluntary redundancy on his resume would be more beneficial than having a forced redundancy.
60. Mr Coates asked the Tribunal to consider that he had been motivated in his attempts to return to work and in fact instigated his return to work. He did not like taking days off work. Dr Khoo also understood that Mr Coates wanted to return to work but he had to accept limits set by his medical advisers and as dictated by his levels of pain from time to time. Mr Coates stated that he does not want compensation but merely for the Respondent to pay his medical expenses particularly in the future.
61. Mr Kelly, for the Respondent, submitted that all of the applications for review should be affirmed. In relation to the incidents occurring on 7 March 1977 [(N2001/241) concerning back pain from lifting conduits and loading them on a truck] and 12 December 1983 [(N2002/239), concerning strain to the back when reaching down into a trench], Mr Kelly submitted that those injuries did not result in compensable sequelae, given what Mr Coates could remember and what is reported in the documentary evidence.
62. Referring to the incident on 14 August 1982 [(N2003/240), when Mr Coates hit a wombat whilst driving], Mr Kelly submitted that given Mr Coates’ recollection, this did not accord with the Incident Report which was made two days later. Mr Kelly noted that Mr Coates was able to continue working after the incident and there was no time taken off work.
63. In relation to the incident on 21 June 1979 (N2003/238), Mr Coates attended hospital. Mr Coates’ written and oral evidence about that incident was that he completely recovered with no medical expenses or little if any time off work.
64. Mr Kelly noted that Mr Coates has submitted to the Tribunal that the most significant injuries were those of 28 April 1994 and the September 1996 incident which occurred at a point contended by Mr Coates to be the high point of his career.
65. Mr Kelly referred the Tribunal to the opinion of Dr Stephen dated 22 June 1994 (N2001/519, T22), in which Dr Stephen noted a pathological bulge centrally and to the right at the L4/5 level. Dr Stephen had further opined that Mr Coates’ symptoms originated from the disc minor prolapse and not from the spondylolisthesis. The Tribunal was also referred by Mr Kelly to the later opinion by Dr Stephen dated 21 November 2001 (Exhibit A1) in which he opined that it was impossible to say whether the pain experienced from Mr Coates emanates from spondylolisthesis or from the level above where there was evidence of a postero-lateral right-sided bulge. Mr Kelly submitted that Dr Stephen most recently reported that Mr Coates suffers degenerative changes and the Tribunal should accept Dr Stephen’s opinion that in all likelihood the pain that Mr Coates experiences would have occurred irrespective of work and that the incident of 28 April 1994 probably does not have a significant relationship to Mr Coates’ current condition. Mr Kelly submitted that Dr Stephen’s opinion does not attribute Mr Coates’ current problems to any of his injuries.
66. Considering the opinion of Dr Olsen (N2001/519, T30) dated 10 August 1994, Mr Kelly submitted that Dr Olsen had agreed with Dr Stephen about a protrusion at the L4/5 level but differed in his opinion to Dr Stephen, concluding that the pain came from spondylolisthesis and that Mr Coates’ history is consistent with that underlying condition. Spondylolisthesis, Mr Kelly submitted, is constitutional and a developmental defect. The disc protrusion is due to the destabilising effect of the spondylolisthesis, Mr Kelly further contended.
67. Mr Kelly referred the Tribunal to the opinion of Dr Hughes in his report dated 21 July 2000 (N2001/519, T62), in which he did not detail severe pain experienced by Mr Coates. Dr Hughes reports intermittent pain and it is not evident from Dr Hughes’ report, that he asked Mr Coates about any severe pain.
68. The difficulty in this matter, Mr Kelly contended, is that Mr Coates has less than a perfect recall. Mr Kelly further submitted that the history of symptoms as reported by Mr Coates is typical of spondylolisthesis. Dr Hughes opined that the intermittent low back pain experienced by Mr Coates is caused by the condition of spondylolisthesis and that any aggravation by any previous work injuries has resolved. Because of the nature of the underlying condition, Mr Coates may experience episodes of low back pain and this is supported by the medical opinion available to the Tribunal.
69. Referring to Professor Mitchell’s opinion, Mr Kelly submitted that this also should be accepted by the Tribunal as providing that Mr Coates’ attacks of pain are due to his spondylolisthesis, an underlying condition, and not caused by or permanently aggravated by Mr Coates’ work at Telstra. In so opining, Professor Mitchell notes the CT scan of the lumbar spine dated 26 June 1994 which reported a bilateral defect at L5 with minimal displacement of L5 on S1 and a bulging disc at L4/5. Mr Kelly noted that while Professor Mitchell acknowledged Mr Coates had an aggravation of his spondylolisthesis as a result of work at Telstra, this aggravation had ceased. Professor Mitchell also opined that the Telstra incidents were minor low back strains with temporary aggravation of his spondylolisthesis, which is a longstanding condition and is not caused by the incidents. Mr Kelly submitted that Professor Mitchell did not consider Mr Coates was entitled to any ongoing medical treatment costs as a result of his spondylolisthesis and certainly not for the 1994 and 1996 incidents.
70. In relation to Mr Coates cessation of his work, Mr Kelly submitted Mr Coates has accepted voluntary redundancy and that since leaving Telstra, he has worked in circumstances which could also have been stressful to his back.
FINDINGS
71. The Tribunal has reached a decision in this matter taking into account the oral and documentary evidence, the submissions and legislation.
72. The Tribunal found Mr Coates gave evidence to the best of his recollection although he noted during the hearing that it was difficult for him to recall events some time ago. The Tribunal did not consider Mr Coates was in any way deliberately trying to withhold or mislead the Tribunal.
73. Mr Coates has made applications for review in relation to six incidents which occurred during the course of his employment with the Telstra Corporation. The Tribunal will deal with each incident in turn.
N2003/241 — Injury to lower back on 7 March 1977 while lifting conduit and loading it onto a truck
74. Mr Coates made a claim for this condition on 4 October 2002 (N2003/241, T5), which was accepted and investigated by the Respondent. Mr Coates had submitted an Incident Report concerning the relevant events on 29 March 1977 (N2003/241, T5). Mr Coates had no time off work it appears from the Incident Report and did not seek medical attention at the time. While Mr Coates has attended medical appointments for low back problems subsequent to this incident, on the material available specific to this particular event and on Mr Coates’ evidence, it is not apparent that there was any specific medical attention sought or that there was any ongoing medical attention relating to that incident. In these circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied given all of the evidence that the Respondent is liable to pay compensation pursuant to section 14 of the Act in relation to this incident on 7 March 1977. Accordingly, pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review in the matter N2003/241.
N2003/238 — Sprain to middle back as a result of an incident on 21 June 1979 while attempting to enter a motor vehicle, slipping on wet concrete and falling
75. In this matter, Mr Coates submitted an Incident Report on 21 June 1979, the day he injured his back (N2003/238, T3). Mr Coates submitted a claim form for compensation for sprain to his middle back on 4 October 2002 (N2003/238, T5), which was accepted and investigated by the Respondent. A determination was made by the Respondent on 8 November 2002 (N2003/238, T7, T8) which noted Mr Coates did not support this claim with any specific medical evidence. The Incident Report indicated that if there was any absence from work, it did not exceed one full shift or a full day. There was no evidence of Mr Coates attending Goulburn Base Hospital for treatment as he asserted despite investigation of Goulburn Base Hospital records by the Respondent. Medical evidence provided by Mr Coates relates to the injuries sustained in 1994 and 1996, which are discussed later in this decision. On reconsideration, the decision was affirmed (N2003/238, T11, T12).
76. The Tribunal notes Mr Coates’ evidence in this matter that he was taken to the Goulburn Base Hospital and x-rays were taken and he had three or four days off work, which on that occasion was time off attending the Goulburn Training College, where he was undertaking a work-related course. Mr Coates evidence was that he actually attended the Training College the next day to continue his course but the course organisers would not allow him to attend. His evidence is that he had no pain the next day and no other medical treatment or physiotherapy. Mr Coates stated in relation to this matter and all of the matters before the Tribunal, that he wished to obtain medical treatment expenses for the incident and for his future needs. The Tribunal notes Mr Coates’ reconsideration request in this matter dated 15 December 2002, that he may not have had any immediate medical treatment at the time of the incident, and his contention that that did not necessarily mean he did not seek medical treatment at a later time (N2003/238, T9, p47). Mr Coates has not, however, provided any further evidence of any medical treatment expenses as a result of this specific injury.
77. Given all the evidence available to the Tribunal in regard to this particular incident on 21 June 1979, it finds that the Respondent is not liable to pay compensation to Mr Coates, apart from medical treatment costs for 21 June 1979, as provided in the original determination. There is no incapacity payment liable to be paid by the Respondent as a result of the incident on 21 June 1979. Accordingly, pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the decision under review in matter in N2003/238 is affirmed.
N2003/240 — Bruising to hip and thigh and low back pain as a result of hitting a wombat while driving on 14 August 1982
78. In this matter, Mr Coates completed an Incident Report on 16 August 1982 (N2003/240, T3), that he hit a wombat at 6.30am on 14 August 1982. Mr Coates made a claim for compensation on 4 October 2002 (N2003/240,T5). A determination was made on 8 November 2002, that no compensation was payable to Mr Coates pursuant to section 14 of the Act as the Respondent’s delegate did not consider that Mr Coates suffered any incapacity for work or the need for treatment from the incident. The delegate noted that Mr Coates did not submit any specific medical evidence in relation to the 14 August 1982 incident and the Incident Report which was submitted two days after the event did not indicate any need for any medical attention or an absence from work exceeding one full shift or a full day. The determination was affirmed on reconsideration (N2003/240,T12), Mr Coates confirmed to the Tribunal that he had no time off work and could not recall any medical treatment after this incident.
79. Again, given the consideration of all of the evidence which, as is the case with the other 2003 applications for review, there is insufficient evidence to allow the Tribunal to be reasonably satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the incident as claimed by Mr Coates caused the need for medical treatment or incapacity. Accordingly, pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the decision under review in respect of matter N2003/240 is affirmed.
N2003/239 – Spasm to lower back as a result of incident on 12 December 1983 reaching into a trench
80. In this matter, Mr Coates recorded in an undated Incident Report that on 12 December 1983, he sprained his back while reaching down into a trench to recover a cable (N2003/239, T3). The Incident Report had no notation made as to whether or not there was an absence from work and also no record whether or not medical attention was required. Mr Coates told the Tribunal he did not recall much about this incident and could not recall ceasing work for any length of time, but believed he was at work the next day. Mr Coates did recall experiencing a sharp pain at the time. The determination dated 8 November 2002, noted that Mr Coates did not provide any specific medical evidence to support his claim or that the injury resulted in incapacity for work or the need for medical treatment. While the Tribunal notes Mr Coates’ evidence at hearing and his written request for reconsideration in this matter, on the balance on probabilities, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to support Mr Coates’ claim for compensation pursuant to section 14 of the Act, for any incapacity or for medical expenses. Accordingly, pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975, the decision under review in matter N2003/239 is affirmed.
N2002/1484 – Aggravation of spondylolisthesis on 28 April 1994 when recovering a file from a safe/filing cabinet
81. In this matter, liability was accepted by the Respondent from 26 August 1994 in respect of aggravation of the underlying disorder of spondylolisthesis arising out of the incident at work on 28 April 1994. Certainly, the Tribunal’s understanding of the opinion of Dr Olsen supports there being an aggravation to Mr Coates’ spondylolisthesis as opined in his report of 10 August 1994. Liability was ceased in respect of the 1994 claim on and from 31 January 1995. The Tribunal notes that no further claim in respect to incapacity or medical expenses was made by Mr Coates until September 1996, when another workplace incident occurred. Clearly, in April 1994, Mr Coates had an incident causing severe back pain which resulted in him being off work for approximately one month but gradually, through participation in a return to work program, he achieved full working hours by February 1995.
82. Consistent with the initial determination by the Respondent in this matter, the medical evidence is that there was a work-caused aggravation to Mr Coates’ spondylolisthesis as a result of the 28 April 1994 incident. Also, there is consistency in the medical opinion that this was a temporary aggravation. It was in 1994 that the spondylolisthesis was diagnosed. This is a degenerative condition not caused by work, the Tribunal finds, based on the majority of medical specialists’ opinions. The Tribunal notes the various opinions of Dr Stephen and particularly his most recent opinion dated 21 November 2001 (Exhibit A1), in that Dr Stephen noted that there have been flare-ups of Mr Coates’ back condition since 1994 in 1996, 1998, 1999 and possibly 2000. Mr Coates accepted a voluntary redundancy in 1998. The Tribunal notes the history provided by Dr Stephen is consistent with histories recorded by Dr Tan, Dr Olsen, Dr Hughes and Professor Mitchell. At times when Mr Coates has been examined by doctors in recent times, there are periods free of pain and where he has full or near full range of lumbar movement. The 1994 work incident, for which Mr Coates received discrete compensation, was considered by Dr Stephen to not have any significant relationship to his current symptoms.
83. There is no doubt in the Tribunal’s mind that Mr Coates does experience mechanical back pain but as a number of doctors opined, it is difficult to determine if the pain he experiences is due to spondylolisthesis or the disc disease proximal to it or a combination of both. Professor Mitchell, in his most recent opinion, noting the previous attacks of low back pain by Mr Coates, opined that they have been of short duration, not requiring any particular medication or treatment. Professor Mitchell’s view does not appear to be much different to that of Dr Stephen in that Professor Mitchell finds that there has been low back pain experienced with temporary aggravation of spondylolisthesis which has occurred at work and that the condition however is not caused by work at Telstra. The Tribunal accepts Professor Mitchell’s opinion that while there have been work-caused aggravations to the underlying condition of spondylolisthesis in 1994 and 1996, the effects of these aggravations have been temporary in nature with no permanent aggravation or change to the condition of spondylolisthesis. Professor Mitchell’s opinion accords with that by Dr Hughes. Dr Olsen further noted when commenting about the 1994 work incident, that Mr Coates would improve and be capable of returning to normal hours, which in fact proved a correct prediction. Dr Olsen concluded however, and the Tribunal accepts this opinion, that there would be re-occurrences of pain from time to time experienced by Mr Coates but these should not automatically be taken to be compensable as the spondylolisthesis is not a work-related condition. Dr Olsen is describing precisely the circumstances in which Mr Coates finds himself and upon which this Tribunal must make its determination.
84. Thus, in all of the circumstances in relation to the 1994 incident and claim, the Tribunal finds that it is entirely appropriate to pay compensation for medical expenses and to pay relevant compensation to Mr Coates for a closed period, but that the effects of the temporary aggravation of the spondylolisthesis ceased by 30 January 1995. In such circumstances, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
N2001/519 – Muscular strain to the lumbosacral spine as a result of an incident on 18 September 1996, bending forward to pick up stores
85. In this matter, liability was accepted by the Respondent and incapacity payments were made in addition to meeting medical expenses from 30 September 1996 with liability ceasing on 3 November 2000 (N2001/519, T68, T69). That determination was affirmed by a delegate of the Respondent on reconsideration. The Tribunal considers that Mr Coates has been properly compensated for the discrete condition which occurred as a work-caused aggravation of the underlying spondylolisthesis on 18 September 1996. Given the opinions of Dr Hughes, Dr Olsen, Professor Mitchell and the recent opinion of Dr Stephen, which all conclude that the presence of the constitutional degenerative condition of spondylolisthesis will be aggravated from time to time, the Tribunal in relation to this matter is reasonably satisfied on the balance of probabilities that on 18 September 1996, a temporary aggravation occurred to Mr Coates’ underlying degenerative condition. The evidence, both documentary and oral is that Mr Coates recovered.
86. Since leaving work at Telstra, Mr Coates has had further acute episodes of back pain with varying degrees of severity which, the Tribunal considers, are not related to the previously accepted work-caused injuries in 1994 and 1996. The strong medical opinion, as discussed earlier in this decision, is consistent in its message that spondylolisthesis is a condition which will intermittently flare-up and acute back pain will be experienced of varying severity. The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that any such aggravation which occurred in 1996 was of a temporary nature as reported on by the body of medical opinion and as predicted by Dr Olsen. The Tribunal is not reasonably satisfied that strain of the lumbosacral spine which occurred on 18 September 1996 permanently aggravated or worsened Mr Coates’ spondylolisthesis. The Tribunal also accepts Dr Olsen’s opinion that it is the spondylolisthesis which impacts on Mr Coates’ disc protrusion.
87. In all of the circumstances in relation to N2001/519, pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Act 1975 the decision is affirmed.
88. In conclusion, the Tribunal affirms all of the decisions under review in respect to matters N2001/519, N2002/1484, N2003/238, N2003/239, N2003/240 and N2003/241.
I certify that the 88 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms SM Bullock, Senior Member and Dr JD Campbell, Member
Signed: .......................................................................................
AssociateDate of Hearing 28 February 2003
Date of Decision 31 October 2003
Representative for the Applicant Self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent Mr B Kelly
Solicitor for the Respondent Ms N Fisher, Henry Davis York
0
0
0