Comcare v Hill

Case [2005] FCA 657

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Comcare v Hill [2005] FCA 657

WORKERS COMPENSATION – Appeal against decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’) setting aside decision of independent review officer who affirmed Comcare’s determination denying liability for compensation claim made by respondent pursuant to Safety, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (‘the SRC Act’) – whether respondent’s injuries could be deemed to have arisen out of his employment – whether injury the result of reasonable medical treatment for an earlier compensable impairment and therefore a deemed injury pursuant to s 4(3) of the SRC Act – appeal dismissed

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975) (Cth) s 25(4), 43(1), 43(2), 44(1)
Safety, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 1988 s 4, 4(3), 5, 5(9), 6A, 14, 14(1), 24, 60(1), 62(2), 62(4), 62(5), 63, 64(1), 69(a)

Federal Court Rules Order 53 rule 3(4)

Adelaide Stevedoring Company Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538 cited
Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Saxby Bridge Financial Planning Pty Ltd (2003) 133 FCR 290 cited
Birdseye v Australian Securities & Investments Commission (2003) 76 ALD 321 cited
Commonwealth of Australia v Holland (1991) 24 NSWLR 198 cited
Fletcher v Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 FCR 442 cited
Langley v Repatriation Commission (1993) 43 FCR 194 cited
Qantas Airways Ltd v Cameron (1996) 66 FCR 246 cited
Tuite v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (1993) 40 FCR 483 cited

COMCARE v CHARLES HILL
NSD 1505 OF 2004

HELY J
24 MAY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1505 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

COMCARE
APPELLANT

AND:

CHARLES HILL
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 MAY 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

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

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1505 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

COMCARE
APPELLANT

AND:

CHARLES HILL
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE:

24 MAY 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Mr Hill came to Australia in 1972 and was employed as an electrician in the Department of the Navy. On 24 August 1976 Mr Hill was injured in the course of his employment. On 10 June 1977 a delegate of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation determined that Mr Hill was entitled to compensation under s 39 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 in the sum of $9,500.00 in relation to that injury, namely retinal detachment resulting in 95 per cent loss of sight in the left eye.

  2. Mr Hill returned to work approximately five months after his accident, and remained in the employ of the Department of Defence until his effective retirement on 15 April 1981, although for at least part of that time he appears to have been on compensation.

  3. On 4 July 1985 a delegate of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation determined that Mr Hill suffered from…

Continue reading Comcare v Hill

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Comcare v Hill [2005] FCA 657
Case
[2005] FCA 657
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Comcare v Hill, the applicant sought review of a decision by Comcare, an agency responsible for the determination of claims made under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). Mr Hill, the applicant, had sustained injuries in November 2002, and subsequently filed a claim for rehabilitation and compensation. Comcare initially denied liability but reconsidered the matter at the request of Mr Hill. Ultimately, Comcare affirmed its original determination, and Mr Hill sought review of that decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether the injuries sustained by Mr Hill in November 2002 were related to his previously accepted compensable condition, a 95% loss of vision in his left eye, which occurred in 1976. The AAT had to determine whether the injuries were a sequela of the original injury or an independent event, as this distinction would affect the liability of Comcare under the Act. Additionally, the AAT needed to assess whether the injuries could be considered a result of reasonable medical treatment for the compensable condition, thus qualifying as an injury under the Act.

The AAT found that there was no evidence linking the compensable condition to the injuries sustained in November 2002. Consequently, the AAT held that the injuries were not related to the compensable condition and dismissed Mr Hill’s application for review. The AAT further determined that the injuries were not the result of medical treatment for the compensable condition. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the injuries were not compensable under the Act.

ORDERS:
The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

HELY J
On 28 May 2003 Mr Hill signed a claim for rehabilitation and compensation under the SRC Act in relation to the injuries which he sustained on 4 November 2002. On 1 August 2003 a delegate of Comcare denied liability in relation to the claim.The reviewable decision On 26 August 2003 Mr Hill’s solicitors requested a review of that decision. The letter included the following:‘It is contended on behalf of Mr Hill that these injuries are sequelae of his original work injury at the Department of Navy on 24 August 1976 in which he lost 95% of the sight in his left eye and for which Comcare has accepted liability.’On 14 October 2003 another delegate of Comcare made a reviewable decision in accordance with s 62(5) of the SRC Act affirming the determination of 1 August 2003. The delegate determined that Mr Hill has an accepted claim in respect of ‘retinal detachment left eye resulting in reactive depression’ on which compensation is payable. Consideration therefore needed to be given as to whether there is any relationship between Mr Hill’s accepted condition and the fall in November 2002. The delegate considered that there was no evidence whatsoever implicating any aspect of the claimant’s compensable condition in the fall in November 2002. Comcare’s functions include the determination of claims made to Comcare under the SRC Act: s 69(a). In the present case, the original determination was made by Comcare on 1 August 2003. Section 62(2) of the SRC Act enabled Mr Hill to request Comcare to reconsider that determination, which, pursuant to s 62(4) of the SRC Act is to be undertaken by a different delegate. On reconsideration, the delegate is to make a decision affirming, revoking or varying the determination: s 62(5). Section 63 requires the decision-maker to notify the claimant in writing of the decision made under s 62. Here, that was done by the letter of 14 October 2003 referred to above. Section 64(1) of the SRC Act allows a claimant to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the AAT’) for review of a ‘reviewable decision’. Section 60(1) of the SRC Act defines ‘reviewable decision’ to mean (relevantly) the reconsideration decision made under s 62 of the SRC Act, ie, the decision notified in the letter of 14 October 2003. Section 25(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975) (Cth) (‘the AAT Act’) confers power on the AAT to review any decision in respect of which application is made to it under any enactment. Section 43(1) of the AAT Act authorises the AAT, for the purpose of reviewing a decision, to exercise all the powers and discretions that are conferred by any relevant enactment on the person who made the decision.The proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal On 15 December 2003 Mr Hill applied to the AAT for a review of the decision of 14 October 2003. In the applicant’s statement of facts and contentions filed in support of that application it was asserted that Mr Hill’s fall on 4 November 2002, and the resultant permanent disability in both his wrists and facial scarring:-were materially contributed to by his 95 per cent loss of vision in his left eye; or-were the result of reasonable medical treatment for his compensable left eye impairment, and could therefore be deemed an injury pursuant to s 4(3) of the SRC Act.Reliance was also placed on s 6A of the SRC Act, but this was later abandoned, and has not been pursued since.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HELY J

Full text does not contain this section.