Corfield and Australian Postal Corporation - [2000] AATA 533

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 533

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )
  )           No N1998/1250
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION          )                N1998/1251
           Re      PAUL PETER CORFIELD
  Applicant
           And    AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member

Date30 June 2000
PlaceSydney

Decision      The Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirms the decision of the Reconsideration Officer, Australian Postal Corporation dated 18 August 1998 which affirmed the decision of the Australian Postal Corporation dated 1 July 1998 to decline liability to pay further compensation to the Applicant Mr Paul Peter Corfield on and from 1 July 1998 with regard to his left knee injury sustained at work on 2 March 1993. The Tribunal affirms the decision of the Reconsideration Section, Australian Postal Corporation (undated) which affirmed the decision of the Australian Postal Corporation dated 11 March 1998 to refuse payment to the Applicant for the travel expenses incurred in attending physiotherapy at the McConnell practice on and from 13 March 1998.
  ..............................................
   Ms G Ettinger
  Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
Compensation - soft tissue knee injury at work - causation - extent of disability not commensurate with level of impact sustained - aggravation raised but not argued –costs of attending specialist knee physiotherapy program held not to be reasonable costs (s16) - decisions affirmed

LEGISLATION
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 14, 16 and 19

REASONS FOR DECISION

30 June 2000 Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member

There were two decisions under review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal").

In the matter N1998/1250, the decision under review was the decision of the Reconsideration Officer of the Australian Postal Corporation dated 18 August 1998 which affirmed the decision of the Australian Postal Corporation dated 1 July 1998 denying liability to pay further compensation to the Applicant Mr Paul Peter Corfield on and from 1 July 1998 with regard to his left knee injured at work on 2 March 1993.
In the matter N1998/1251 the decision under review was the decision of the Reconsideration Section of the Australian Postal Corporation (undated), which affirmed the decision of the Australian Postal Corporation dated 11 March 1998 to refuse payment for the travel expenses incurred in attending physiotherapy at the McConnell practice on and from 13 March 1998.

The Applicant, Mr Paul Peter Corfield, was represented by Mr J Graham of counsel and the Respondent, Australian Postal Corporation, by Ms R Henderson of counsel. Oral evidence was given by the Applicant, Mr Corfield, Dr S Dalton, rehabilitation physician and Dr S Sorrenti, orthopaedic surgeon. Dr B Casey, consultant orthopaedic surgeon, gave evidence by telephone.
ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
The issues before the Tribunal were:
(a) whether the Applicant continued to suffer from a compensable injury within the terms of section 4 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act"), on or after 1 July 1998 in respect of his left knee injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the Respondent Australian Postal Corporation on 2 March 1993; 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Corfield and Australian Postal Corporation 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] AATA 533
Decision Date: 30 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Corfield and the Australian Postal Corporation was heard in a workers compensation tribunal. The applicant, Mr Corfield, sought compensation for a soft tissue knee injury sustained during his employment as a mail sorter. The dispute centred on the causation of the injury, the extent of the disability, and the reasonableness of costs associated with attending a specialist knee physiotherapy program. The tribunal was required to decide whether the injury claimed by Mr Corfield was still attributable to the incident of 2 March 1993, and whether he was entitled to compensation for loss of wages due to shorter working hours. Additionally, the tribunal assessed the claim for travel expenses to attend physiotherapy. The medical evidence indicated that Mr Corfield suffered from chondromalacia patellae of the left knee and had undergone three arthroscopy operations. Despite the severity of his condition, the tribunal had to consider whether the disability was commensurate with the level of impact sustained.

The legal issues involved determining the causation of the injury and the extent of the disability. The tribunal had to assess the medical evidence, which included reports from orthopaedic surgeons and a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, as well as Mr Corfield's personal testimony. The court was particularly focused on the correlation between the medical findings and the reported incidents. Dr Casey, the consultant orthopaedic surgeon, opined that the effects of the compensable condition had ceased by the end of April 1993 and that Mr Corfield's current condition was not attributable to the incident on 2 March 1993. The tribunal needed to weigh this medical opinion against Mr Corfield's claims of ongoing pain and disability. Furthermore, the tribunal had to decide if the costs of attending a specialist knee physiotherapy program were reasonable and compensable under section 16 of the Act.

The tribunal found that despite the operations, Mr Corfield had not reported significant improvement. Dr Casey's opinion was that the effects of the compensable condition had ceased by the end of April 1993, and the current condition was not attributable to the incident on 2 March 1993. The tribunal concluded that the extent of the disability was not commensurate with the level of impact sustained, and the causation of the injury was not established. Consequently, the decisions affirming the rejection of Mr Corfield's claims for compensation and travel expenses were upheld. The tribunal held that the costs of attending the specialist knee physiotherapy program were not reasonable costs as per section 16 of the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

When questioned about leisure activities, Mr Corfield said that he went fishing every two to four weeks in rivers and from pontoons. He had had a runabout in the past. He said whilst fishing he sat with his leg straight, and needed to move after about half an hour.EVIDENCE OF DR B CASEY CONSULTANT ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEON Dr Casey, whose report of 15 May 1998 was before the Tribunal at T100, gave oral evidence by telephone link. The second arthroscopy report of Dr Dickison was read to him (Exhibit R1). "With the arthroscope the patella seems to have Grade I change with softening. There appeared to be some significant lateral overhang of the patella. The medial compartment, lateral compartment, medial meniscus and lateral meniscus were normal. The lateral femoral condyle tibial plateau did demonstrate some Grade II changes. Anterior cruciate ligament normal.Lateral release performed using Glycine fluid. Tourniquet released, haemostasis checked. Drain inserted." Dr Casey said that Dr Dickison had released the patella which was tight due to a constitutional condition, and therefore "maltracking." A history of Mr Corfield's accidents was put to Dr Casey who opined from what he had heard, that the injury the Applicant had suffered on 2 March 1993 had not been severe, and he said, relying on the record of Dr Aziz, had settled within approximately five days. He noted that the motorcycle accident in 1993 had been with regard to the right leg. When cross-examined about Dr Aziz's record dated 7 March 1993, Dr Casey said that he understood Mr Corfield had taken time off work after the incident of 2 March 1993, and had improved after five days. He said that Dr Aziz had recorded no effusion had occurred. Dr Casey opined that there was a lack of correlation between the CT and MRI scan results relating to Mr Corfield, and the physical examination. Dr Casey then told the Tribunal about chondromalacia patellae, which may occur if the patella maltracks. Maltracking he said was constitutional, inherent in the anatomy of an individual. He did concede that it could be precipitated by injury, remarking that in Mr Corfield's case, the claimed trauma had been minor. He said that he expected the Applicant to be able to cope with standing and doing his job if there was not a lot of lifting and twisting involved. Dr Casey remarked on the physiotherapy program in which Mr Corfield was involved, the McConnell program, and said that it was widely available, and that many people did the exercises themselves. He remarked that in any case, the Applicant was not being treated by Ms McConnell but by one of the other people there. He opined that "any competent physiotherapist should be able to do it." Remarking on the numbness experienced by Mr Corfield, Dr Casey said that this was referred from the back, probably the low lumbar spine. Dr Casey concluded in his written report (PT100/127), that "I would regard the effects of the compensable condition as having ceased at the end of April 1993." He opined further: "On the balance of probabilities, I would regard Mr Corfield's current condition as not attributable to the incident of 2.3.93."

Decision

Reasons for decision

He said that in spite of the operations, Mr Corfield had not reported great improvement. He agreed in cross-examination that the trauma Mr Corfield suffered on 2 March 1993 may have been minor and did not necessarily lead to his chondromalacia patellae.SUBMISSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Having heard and read all the evidence, I had to take into account the case law and legislation as well as the submissions of both parties to make the correct and preferable decision regarding Mr Corfield's compensation entitlements (section 4, 14, 19 of the Act), and the accompanying claim for travelling expenses to attend physiotherapy (section 16 of the Act). I am mindful that the medical evidence before me indicated that Mr Corfield suffers chondromalacia patellae of the left knee. It was undisputed that he has undergone three arthroscopy operations in this regard, two performed by Dr Dickison, orthopaedic surgeon, which took place on 25 July 1995 and 10 September 1996, and a further operation by Dr Sorrenti, orthopaedic surgeon, on 2 February 1998. These were well documented and the doctors' reports were before the Tribunal. The Applicant's evidence was that his knee pain and disability were the result of an incident on night shift during his work as a mail sorter on 2 March 1993. He gave evidence that he had swivelled around on his chair while sorting mail and struck his kneecap (patella) on the steel sorting frame at which he sat. The injury had occurred at work, and, during Mr Corfield's working hours. Liability had been accepted pursuant to the Act which had ceased on and from 1 July 1998 for the knee injury and 13 March 1998 for travel expenses incurred in connection with attendance at physiotherapy. My task was to consider whether the disability claimed could on and from 1 July 1998 still be held to be an injury within the terms of section 4 of the Act, and whether Mr Corfield could therefore be compensated for his loss of wages due to his shorter working hours. As discussed later in these reasons, I also considered whether Mr Corfield's claim for travel expenses to attend physiotherapy was compensable pursuant to section 16 of the Act on and from 13 March 1998. Mr Graham submitted that Mr Corfield has suffered pain ever since the incident of 2 March 1993, with swelling of the knee area and numbness on his left side and that he continues to suffer that pain. He said that Mr Corfield had for the past year and a half had been working six hours per day five days per week. Mr Graham emphasised that the Applicant had given evidence to the effect that he had suffered no other accidents implicating his left knee, and that his evidence in that regard had not been rebutted. From the evidence before me of the motorcycle accident the Applicant suffered in June 1986 which was raised at the Tribunal, and despite the Applicant's vague recollection of it, I accept from the medical evidence of Dr Sorrenti dated 6 October 1998 that this fall was not the cause of the problems Mr Corfield suffers in relation to his left knee.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.