[2014] AATA 163
Division General Administrative Division File Number
2013/1084
Re
Colleen McAullay
APPLICANT
And
Comcare
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President S D Hotop
Date 26 March 2014 Place Perth The decision under review is affirmed.
....................[sgd]..........................................
S D Hotop
Deputy President
Colleen McAullay (“the applicant”) commenced employment with CRS Australia on 21 July 2008 as an Employment Services Consultant.
On 2 August 2011 the applicant made a claim for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“SRC Act”) in respect of a condition described as “acute neck strain on background of chronic neck injury” which she claimed to have suffered on 15 July 2011 in the performance of her employment duties, and for which she first sought medical treatment on 15 July 2011.
On 12 October 2011 a delegate of Comcare (“the respondent”) made a determination accepting liability under s 14 of the SRC Act to pay compensation to the applicant in respect of “aggravation of neck sprain (left)”.
On 6 July 2012 a Senior Rehabilitation Case Manager, Department of Human Services made a determination under s 37 of the SRC Act that the applicant’s “rehabilitation provider … develop an appropriate rehabilitation program with the goal of achieving a return to pre-injury hours and duties”.
Following a request by the applicant’s (then) solicitors for a reconsideration of the abovementioned determination, a Review Officer of the respondent, on 11 January 2013, made a “reviewable decision” under s 38(4) of the SRC Act affirming that determination.
On 12 March 2013 the applicant lodged with the Tribunal an application for review of the abovementioned reviewable decision.
The Evidence
The evidence before the Tribunal comprised the “T Documents” (T1–T165, pp 1–496) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and:
·supplementary documents (ST1–ST100, pp 1–286) filed by the respondent on 29 November 2013 (Exhibit R1);
·statement of the applicant, dated 6 January 2014 (Exhibit A1);
·supplementary statement of the applicant, dated 21 January 2014 (Exhibit A2);
·Exhibits A3 – A5 tendered by the applicant;
·Exhibits R2 – R4 tendered by the respondent; and
·the oral evidence of the applicant, Dr Andrew Harper, Dr Joel Silbert, and Dr Mary Wyatt.
The Applicant’s Evidence
The applicant confirmed that she had signed a statement, dated 6 January 2014, prepared for the purpose of this proceeding, and that its contents (as amended by her in her oral evidence) are true and correct. That statement (as amended) is as follows:
“ BACKGROUND
1. My name is Colleen McAullay. I was born on … August 1953.
2. …
3. I am currently not working.
4.I completed school at age 16 at Lady’s College (now called Mercedes) and also boarded at Santa Maria College.
5. I completed a diploma of teaching in approximately 1981.
6. I completed a diploma in Frontline Business Management in 2003.
WORK HISTORY
7.After I finished high school I worked at different pharmacies.
8.In about 1972 I completed a…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Colleen McAullay and Comcare 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] AATA 163
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal examined the medical evidence and McAullay's testimony regarding the ongoing effects of her injury. McAullay's evidence included detailed descriptions of her physical and emotional symptoms, which she claimed persisted since the injury. She detailed how her injury affected her ability to perform daily activities and her capacity to work effectively. The Tribunal also reviewed Comcare's decision to cease compensation, which was based on an assessment that McAullay no longer suffered from the effects of her injury.
The Tribunal concluded that the decision to cease compensation was not supported by the evidence. It found that McAullay's neck injury had a significant and ongoing impact on her ability to work and perform daily activities. The Tribunal determined that Comcare's cessation of compensation was unreasonable. It ordered that McAullay should undertake an appropriate rehabilitation program to address her ongoing needs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.