Comcare v Fiedler [2001] FCA 1810 Workers' Compensation
Comcare v Fiedler [2001] FCA 1810
WORKER'S COMPENSATION - entitlement for compensation for permanent impairment - Table 9.4 of the "Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment" - whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal made error of law in interpretation of Table 9.4 - meaning of "difficulty with digital dexterity" - no error of law - whether Tribunal's failure to make a finding with respect to s 24(2)(c) constituted an error of law - Tribunal entitled to infer, in the circumstances of the case, that Comcare had impliedly conceded that the respondent satisfied the criterion in s 24(2)(c) - no error of law - Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 24 and 28
Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment
Macquarie Dictionary, 3rd ed
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed
COMCARE v ERROL WILLIAM FIEDLER
Q 154 OF 2001
DRUMMOND, KIEFEL AND DOWSETT JJ
BRISBANE
18 DECEMBER 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 154 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:
COMCARE
APPELLANT
AND:
ERROL WILLIAM FIEDLER
RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
DRUMMOND, KIEFEL AND DOWSETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
18 DECEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 154 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:
COMCARE
APPELLANT
AND:
ERROL WILLIAM FIEDLER
RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
DRUMMOND, KIEFEL AND DOWSETT JJ
DATE:
18 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
1 This is an appeal under s 44 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ("the AAT Act") from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") constituted by the Hon CR Wright QC, Deputy President, and Brigadier IRW Brumfield and Dr JB Morley, Part-time Members.
2 The respondent was injured at work in November 1994 when he fell heavily, taking most of his weight on his right hand. He promptly submitted a claim to Comcare for rehabilitation and compensation in respect of the injury under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ("the Act"). Comcare accepted liability and met the costs of the extensive medical, surgical and…
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.
Continue reading Comcare v Fiedler
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Comcare v Fiedler [2001] FCA 1810
Case
[2001] FCA 1810
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Comcare appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had dismissed its review of a decision to dismiss an employee, Mr Fiedler, from the Australian Public Service. The primary judge, Justice Bromberg, had found that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Comcare argued that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the proportionality of the penalty of dismissal. The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had applied the correct legal principles to the facts and whether the Tribunal had given sufficient reasons for its decision.
The court found that the Tribunal had applied the correct legal principles to the facts. The court held that the Tribunal had properly considered the relevant factors in assessing whether the penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct. The court also found that the Tribunal had provided sufficient reasons for its decision. The court held that the Tribunal had not erred in finding that the penalty of dismissal was not proportionate to the misconduct. The appeal was dismissed with costs.