Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 798
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2009/2397
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re Confidential Applicant
And
Comcare
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms N Bell, Senior Member Date18 October 2010
PlaceSydney
Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
...................[sgd]...........................
Ms N Bell, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS - Workers Compensation – permanent impairment – disease – ailment – regional pain syndrome – tenosynovitis and synovitis – psychological influences – contributed to by employment to significant degree
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Commonwealth Banking Corporation v Raymond William Percival (1988) 20 FCR 176
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms N Bell, Senior Member 1. The Applicant commenced employment with Centrelink in 2001 performing clerical duties. In July 2008, the Applicant lodged a claim for tendonitis of the left wrist and bursitis of the left elbow that she claimed resulted from prolonged, repetitive typing and computer based work required in the performance of her employment.
2. The Applicant now contends that she has suffered tenosynovitis and synovitis (as it was characterised by Comcare) in her left wrist attributable to her employment and contends that this tenosnovitis and synovitis was a precursor her current suffering of chronic regional pain syndrome.
3. Comcare contends that the diagnosis of chronic regional pain syndrome is not a disease or injury as defined in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and is not attributable to the Applicant’s employment.
4. Therefore, the issues for the Tribunal to consider are:
(a)does the Applicant suffer from a disease as defined in the Act?
(b)if so, was the Applicant’s regional pain syndrome contributed to by her employment to a significant degree?
does the applicant suffer from a disease as defined in the act?
5. The Applicant describes her current symptoms to include pain in her upper arm, elbow, shoulder, neck, forearm and hand as well as some numbness and tingling. She also stated that she has had a stabbing pain in the front of her ribs, the intensity of which varies depending on her activity. She said that as a result of the symptoms she is unable to perform housework and must drive one handed. She said that she cannot use her arm or it will aggravate the symptoms. The Applicant gave evidence that she first experienced pain in her left arm from about July 2006. Despite some improvement after taking leave and a reduction in her duties in accordance with an occupational therapists report, her pain became “unmanageable” by 7 July 2008, on which date she was certified unfit to work.
6.
In October 2008, the Applicant returned to work on a gradual return to work beginning with two days per week. However, the Applicant said that on these days she had difficulties as a result of the amount of keying she was required to do. The Applicant said that by early 2009 her symptoms again became “unmanageable” and she experienced pain in her left upper limb. The Applicant said that in
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Confidential 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
- [2010] AATA 798
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the psychological influences and the degree of contribution by the employment to the applicant's condition warranted a finding of permanent impairment. This involved examining the evidence presented and the applicable legislative framework, particularly the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The court also had to consider previous case law, notably Commonwealth Banking Corporation v Raymond William Percival, to assess how similar conditions and their relation to employment have been treated in past decisions.
In reaching its decision, the court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the applicant's condition was significantly contributed to by their employment. The court highlighted that while the applicant's employment might have exacerbated the condition, there was no clear causal link between the employment and the onset of the disease or ailment. The court also noted that psychological influences were not adequately distinguished from other contributing factors. As a result, the court affirmed the decision under review, finding that Comcare was correct in not awarding permanent impairment benefits to the applicant.
The court's decision concluded with the affirmation of the administrative decision, and no further orders were made. The applicant's appeal was dismissed, and the outcome of the review remained unchanged.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is affirmed.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.