CRNR and COMCARE (Compensation)
[2025] ARTA 862
•27 June 2025
CRNR and COMCARE (Compensation) [2025] ARTA 862 (27 June 2025)
Applicant/s: CRNR
Respondent: COMCARE
Tribunal Number: 2022/2142
Tribunal:Senior Member A Ward
Place:Adelaide
Date:27 June 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.....................[SGND].......................
Senior Member A Ward
Catchwords
self represented litigant – mental illness – proof of events complained of – conflicting evidence – hearing on papers – restriction on identities of witnesses
Legislation
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024
Cases
Secondary Materials
Statement of Reasons
The Applicant has brought a claim for compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act) for injuries that he claims as arising in his employment with Centrelink. He filled out a claim form on 16 August 2021. That claim referred to a condition of anxiety, depression and stress. It was asserted that this arose when he was undertaking office work, with a nominated date of 6 August 2021 at 14:45 when he first noticed his injury/symptoms. He said he was injured as a result of ‘continual aggravation, harassment, bullying and humiliation by supervisors.’[1]
[1] T3 Ex 1 p 28
A determination was made by the Respondent on 28 October 2021 declining liability under section 14 of the SRC Act. That decision was affirmed on 23 December 2021 and that affirming determination is the subject of these proceedings.
The Applicant was self-represented. The Applicant has been diagnosed with having cognitive impairment with neurodegenerative processes and likely complicating problems with vascular issues and Alzheimer’s Disease. This condition has continued to affect him and worsened.
The matter was set for hearing for 3 days commencing Wednesday, 6 November 2024.
However, by direction on 10 October 2024, that hearing date was vacated because the Applicant was not in a position where he could represent himself over that period. The Applicant, however, could give a good account of himself at various directions hearings that occurred in the latter months of 2024 and early months of 2025. He was distressed at the prospect of representing himself for a full hearing.
In various Directions Hearings, the Applicant was asked to consider organisations which could assist him in providing representation. There were also attempts made by the Respondent to see if pro bono representation could be organised.
Consideration was also given at the directions hearing on 6 November 2024 to the matter proceeding for consideration on the papers pursuant to section 49 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act (ART Act).
On 29 November 2024, it became apparent that the Applicant was not able to obtain assistance from anybody to act either on a pro bono basis or as a litigation supporter pursuant to section 67 of the ART Act. He specifically did not want his wife or adult children to act in the role of litigation supporter.
On 14 February 2025, confirmation was made (with the agreement of the Respondent - appropriately given) that the matter proceed for determination on the papers.
Information before the Tribunal included the notes of the Churchill Centre Family Practice (GP). The notes contained correspondence from Dr Adeloisa Pajaro, a geriatrician.
The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Applicant did not have any expert evidence to support his specific contentions. He also clearly had problems with his dementia condition, which was being treated by Dr Pajaro. Histories of problems related to that specific condition were provided to Dr Pajaro and they were, to a degree, inconsistent with the history provided by the Applicant for the purposes of the claim.
The reports of Dr Pajaro were in the Tribunal documents, but they were also provided again to the parties to ask if they had any further comments or submissions they wanted to make with regards to the history on the reports. The letters from Dr Pajaro were not medicolegal reports, but were contemporaneous reports back to the referring general practitioner. In the Tribunal’s view, these would be admissible as part of the business records of the GP or Dr Pajaro’s notes if assessing the matter on strict evidence.
The Tribunal alerted the parties as to these reports to ensure procedural fairness to both as the different histories did not significantly feature in the Facts Issues and Contentions put forward by the Respondent. It was also inconsistent with the history put by the Applicant, as will be set out below.
Further, on consideration of the evidence that might not have been obvious within a large bundle of medical notes that were subpoenaed.
The Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision for the reasons that follow.
A list of Exhibits is annexed to the Conclusion of these Reasons.
History of Claim
The Applicant was born in 1956. As noted, in his Workers’ Compensation Claim Form (Claim Form) he executed on 16 August 2021, he said he first noticed symptoms on 6 August 2024.[2] Thus, he would have been 64 years of age.
[2] Exhibit 1, T3, p 26.
The Applicant had held a number of jobs including a period of self-employment with his wife. That came to an end and he obtained employment with Centrelink on 17 May 2021.
The Applicant did not use computers much in his previous employments and said he made that clear to Centrelink. He was advised that he would be offered training in the use of computers.
On starting at Centrelink on 17 May 2021, the Applicant participated in a 6-week induction training and consolidation learning plan. Other staff were similarly employed and undertook the same training and work.
Evidence indicates that the employment of these people, including the Applicant, followed a peak demand for Centrelink services. The Applicant was initially trained in processing work due to an increase in customer demand caused by the COVID pandemic, which was well-entrenched by the time of his recruitment.
The Applicant stated that he was a 64-year-old man and had not used computers for 20 years. He was advised he would receive training.
Ms H was the Applicant’s supervisor at Centrelink, a Statement of Ms H[3] refers to the training and that at the four week mark the Applicant had concerns about his performance. He required regular support. He was provided additional support to build his ability with basic computer skills. This continued to be difficult for him. Work was not being completed, which impacted on client’s payments. This led to a tense interchange with his supervisor on the 23 July 2021 although there was lasting problem from that episode.
[3] Exhibit 3, p 30.
The Tribunal finds that support and assistance was provided to the Applicant at this time.
The Applicant did not improve with his computer work despite training and assistance being provided. This included technical peer support officers completing his work for him on occasion. This led to discussions on his performance. When consideration was given to a Performance Improvement Plan the Applicant complained that he was unhappy with the training and support he had been given to that point.
the Applicant had two meetings with Ms H on 30th July 2021. Over the course of the day he became upset. Support was offered including access to the Employee Assistance Program. the Applicant had left work early that day and did not return to work. Ms H would contact him to check his progress. Her evidence is that he did not advise of incidents of bullying or harassment during their interactions. She was not made aware of these until he sent the email on 23 August 2021.
The Applicant has said that he was abused by the team leader who “started screaming at him and humiliating him in front of everyone”.[4] This is not consistent with the statement of Ms H. Rather he was supported by supervisors and co-workers in his work.
[4] Exhibit 1, T5, p34.
The Applicant sent Ms H an email on 23 August 2021 in which he expanded on the issues, noting:
“An unfortunate set of circumstances which has now left me suffering with high level anxiety and depression for the rest of my life and for what was it to prove a point was it that I was of ethnic background?”
The email went on to state:
“Never thought my ethnic background the overall humiliation not to mention aggressive manner which I was continually spoken to.”
There is no description as to ethnicity or racism to expand upon what he meant by that but in subsequent correspondence, he has referred to racism. This does not feature in the medical evidence. Nor was racism referred to in the initial claim form signed on 16 August 2021.
His son wrote an email regarding the claim on 14 August 2021.[5] He described in detail ill treatment and aggressive and threatening behaviour. This occurred at work so the son was not a witness to the behaviour, so the information was understood to have been provided by his father. As will be seen, the radiality of the Applicant’s description of events is problematic due to his mental conditions. The email confirms that is what the Applicant said to his son, but does not confirm of itself that the events described actually occurred.
[5] Exhibit 1, T4, p32.
Pre-existing health
In the initial claim form, the Applicant was asked, “Have you ever experienced a similar symptom, injury or illness, work-related or otherwise?” and his answer was “No”.
The Applicant was assessed by Associate Professor Varma who provided a report dated 15 October 2021.[6] Under the heading “Past History”, it states that “He does not have any past history of psychiatric illness”.
[6] Exhibit 1, p52.
This is inconsistent with the earlier part of the same report which stated:
“Management said that he has a pre-existing medical concern and he had psychological issues even before he started work. He had a medical problem also where he told his team leader that he became disorientated while driving which is why he was taken for scanning. He had two heart attacks in September for which he is being managed by his doctors”.
In the general practitioner exhibit, there is a history of consultations with his general practitioners for regular, mostly unrelated issues and commencing with visits from May 2016. These note cardiac problems. The Applicant is also on various prescriptions for various conditions. What is of interest is that from 2016, there is a note that appears that he was given a script two weeks ago and the entry says, “? lost it again”.
There is repetition of this on a relatively regular basis, that is, scripts being lost or otherwise stolen, or destroyed by his grandchildren. Then, on 28 April 2017, when he was visiting the doctor for another purpose (hernia surgery) the note said, “also worried about dementia in family”.
Thereafter, on 10 July 2017, there is another entry referring to concerns about dementia and the history that his mother and grandmother have dementia and he was concerned as recently he was becoming more forgetful. The reason for visit is described as “forgetfulness”. The notes referred to him working in his own business at home at that time and that he was having increasing incidents of misplacing documents and forgetting things, such as where his car keys were. He noted specifically misplacing a script from a recent visit to a doctor.
Thereafter, the notes again record him losing a script. His forgetfulness continued, being mentioned again on 17 May 2018 and 2 November 2020. On that occasion, forgetfulness and concerns regarding dementia were noted, as well as the Applicant being bored after he closed his business. Two days later, he had to return to the doctor because he had lost his scripts again.
Then, in early 2021, he saw the doctor for headaches and had an MRI of his head on 19 February 2021 and a CT scan of his brain on 22 June 2021. He told Ms H that he had a scare when he lost his memory while driving and lost his bearings. He could not remember how to travel home.
On 26 September 2021 – after the claim was instituted – his treating general practitioner referred him to Dr Pajaro with the note, “Thank you for seeing [The Applicant] for CGA and moderate cognitive decline”. Dr Pajaro provided a detailed letter back to Dr Poonia on 20 October 2021. This was the letter that was provided to the parties for their specific consideration. The family medical history was noted as dementia in his mother aged 70 and his uncle. The report went on:
“[the Applicant] is concerned about his slow cognitive decline which he thinks started early this year, with short and long term memory issues, misplacing objects like keys, repetitiveness, confusion with time of day, waking up at 2am thinking it was time to get up, forgetting to turn off the car when he parked in the shopping centre and returning home without the car which happens 2 to 3 times, word-finding difficulty and forgetting his train of thought.”
The letter also noted him forgetting his medication, forgetting passwords at the ATM and pin numbers.
Interestingly, the letter states: “[The Applicant] got an IT job from May to August 2021 but got dismissed from his work in September because he couldn’t perform his job properly”. There was no reference to bullying being the cause of symptoms obvious in that discussion.
The letter also went on to state, “He reports having hallucinations of his dead parents and he could hear his mother’s voice which is sometimes distressing to him. [The Applicant] denies feeling depressed or having any suicidal thoughts but he gets very anxious because of these memory problems.”
The letter noted that the Applicant said he saw a psychologist last year (2020) because of his anxiety. Again, there is no reference of work problems being the cause for that consultation.
During the consultation on 20 October 2021, Dr Pajaro called the Applicant’s wife, who reported that the Applicant had started to have slow cognitive decline “six months ago … and it was accompanied by head buzzing”.
Dr Pajaro felt the condition started much earlier than that because the Applicant had the head MRI in February 2021.
The history went on:
“[The Applicant’s wife] reports [the Applicant] has a personality change because he is more angry and short-tempered. [the Applicant] gets paranoid about locking the house but he doesn’t think anyone has stolen from him. She reports he was depressed and anxious last year after he gave up his business”.
The Applicant’s wife also reported the Applicant getting shaky hands whenever he could not do things. She confirmed he saw a psychologist once but it did not greatly help.
In addition, the Applicant reported having falls since September 2021.
Dr Pajaro diagnoses cognitive impairment, being neurodegenerative process likely mixed vascular and Alzheimer’s disease. This affected his memory frontal/executive function, language calculation and visuo-spatial skills. He had poor sleep, angina with falls, constipation, dyslipidaemia and vitamin D deficiency.
As to these problems pre-dating the designated commencement of problem claim, there was a referral from Dr Pajaro to the neurologist, Dr Boundy on 16 March 2022. Dr Pajaro described the history of the Applicant being a 65-year-old male with a one-year history of cognitive impairment and intermittent headache. Dr Pajaro also referred to this being compounded by the adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression related to work issues which would be consistent to a degree with the claim, but then points out “because of his cognitive problems he couldn’t learn IT and perform his job”.
That is significantly different to the case put forward by the Applicant. He says he just was not good on computers, but his problems arose from what he described as the bullying and harassment, as detailed above. This history from Dr Pajaro says that the condition arose from his frustration at not being able to do the work and that is directly related to the cognitive decline.
It is evident with the suite of problems diagnosed by Dr Pajaro that the Applicant would have had significant difficulties with his Centrelink work.
As can be seen from the references in the GP notes, there were signs of cognitive decline well-prior to his employment with Centrelink which were being recorded in consultations with his GP.
Medical Evidence
Looking then at the Applicant’s situation prior to the nominated onset of symptoms, we have the first report of Associate Professor Varma dated 15 October 2021 which was undertaken using teleconference facilities during the COVID period. In addition to the description of his supervisors bullying and harassing him due to his lack of computer skills, and screaming, yelling and talking aggressively at him, the Applicant described other issues.
Firstly, he described two heart attacks in September 2021. This is slightly difficult to follow in other information. He described also having falls in September 2021. The Applicant sent an email to the Worker’s Compensation Officer on 31 August 2021. He said in that email “My concern is on 28 August [2021] I suffered a heart attack at my home”. He described this as being in addition to the medical trauma and four months of anxiety, stress and depression whilst working at Centrelink. He was asked on 1 September 2021 whether he wanted to claim the heart attack as part of his claim. It does not appear this was taken up.
In addition to those issues, the Applicant also told Associate Professor Varma that “his wife of 40 years was having an affair with his cousin, and he is horrified with that because they have two beautiful educated children and four grandchildren. He is very angry at her also that, she can do this at this stage of her life”. He said that they had separated. He also said that he did not have the money to undertake divorce proceedings.
This history was confirmed for the second examination with Associate Professor Varma on 17 April 2023. It noted for the review examination that the Applicant was still living with his ex-wife who also continued the relationship with the cousin. The mental state examination at this appointment referred to the fact that “He was forced to live with his ex-wife who was in a relationship with a young man”.
On this issue, Dr Pajaro wrote a further report on 9 September 2024 (Exhibit 13). In that instance, the Applicant’s wife attended the consultation with the Applicant. A history of the Applicant getting angry, with mood swings and depressed episodes was noted. There were also safety concerns, such as the Applicant leaving the stove on unattended. That letter from the GP says, “Hence [the Applicant’s wife] has decided just to be his fulltime carer in order to supervise him”.
This seems to be inconsistent with the clear references from Associate Professor Varma to their being separated and the reasons for it.
There were also issues raised regarding driving. However, Dr Pajaro asked the Applicant ‘s wife whether they were separated and noted in the letter, she “was surprised to hear that because they had not been separated”. Dr Pajaro said that the Applicant told her that their daughter was his main support. The letter said “[she] said that sometimes [the Applicant] confabulates and makes up stories like this”. It is difficult to think why the Applicant maintained that narrative to Associate Professor Varma if it was not true. It was significant enough for Associate Professor Varma to refer to that as a significant cause of the problems that he assessed.
This clearly indicates the difficulty considering the evidence in this case. What is described by one expert as a significant cause of the Applicant’s state is by no means certain to have occurred. However his repeated belief that it has is a source of considerable vexation for him. Therefore the Tribunal must question whether the work behaviour of which he complains actually occurred (the bullying and harassment) or not? Is it an example of ‘confabulation’ or ‘made up stories’?
Associate Professor Varma did not have the benefit of the more detailed history from the treating medical providers. Associate Professor Varma did have the benefit of the involvement of Dr Pajaro with the letter that she prepared on 15 March 2023. This was for a follow-up consultation report by Associate Professor Varma on 17 April 2023 which gave rise to the report which is Exhibit 14.
In discussing the difference in his situation from the earlier report, Associate Professor Varma noted that the Applicant was more or less the same. “The only one factor which is affecting him is that he is being quite forgetful. He said doctors are suspecting that he may develop dementia, possibly vascular in aetiology.”
From the consideration above, those symptoms were affecting the Applicant prior to his employment. Associate Professor Varma was not provided with that information or has not provided any further report to assess the history raised in Dr Pajaro’s first letter back to the GP.
It would seem however quite feasible that if the Applicant was having difficulties with his cognitive abilities, that he would find it frustrating. This is consistent with the discussion noted by Dr Pajaro with the Applicant’s wife. There is also her explanation of him being affected by the loss of his business. These are not described as issues that arose following the nominated onset of symptoms in August 2021 but pre-date it.
Another factor that arises and is worthy of consideration given the cognitive issues and a certain amount of paranoia described, is the Applicant making an allegation for the purposes of a workers’ compensation claim, that there had been an intruder on his property. This was made by email on 13 September 2021. The claims manager assured him that there was not such an investigation going on. The Applicant has a previous history of working in Claims so that might have put that thought in his mind.
These issues are recorded here to show inconsistencies on significant issues. That gives rise to concern on the part of the Tribunal as to accepting the Applicant’s evidence or assertions of events on key points. Are they events that actually occurred or events that he thought might have occurred? This is not to say that he has exaggerated his claim for the purposes of compensation. He is certainly mindful of his perceptions of his entitlement to compensation for what he thinks happened to him, but his version of events does not really go into any detail of the significant pre-accident issues that he was having, which makes his evidence very difficult to assess.
Evidence put forward by the Respondent certainly confirms that the Applicant had difficulties with regards to his work. Ms H had a meeting with the Applicant on 9 June 2021. Her statement dated 20 September 2021 indicates that the Applicant raised with her at that meeting his use of the agency system. That is, he raised the issue rather than her calling a meeting to discuss the issue. However, she had been aware of the Applicant requiring support and she noted it was apparent that he was having difficulties with the computer-based system.
Therefore, the descriptions are consistent. However, there is evidence before the Tribunal that those problems with the system may well have been a manifestation of cognitive degeneration and dementia.
The various meetings that Ms H had with the Applicant subsequent to that are supportive. But it is obvious that the Applicant was having difficulties with the computer work despite the additional training that was provided to him.
The Applicant disclosed the incident of losing his memory whilst driving and did not remember how to get home. This occurred on 29 June 2021.
There is no suggestion that there was screaming or humiliation inflicted by those assisting him. The contemporaneous medical notes relating to consultations in May and June do not make reference to workplace bullying as he has subsequently described it.
As time passed, the Applicant was not completing the work he had to do. His supervisor took this up with him and offered him support to make sure he completed his update. Ms H did on one occasion correct the Applicant on an issue where he had not completed his work and when she raised this with him, he commented, “It’s okay, they will be there on Monday”. She responded, “It’s not okay”.
Ms H says she apologised for the way she spoke to him and this was accepted. Reflecting on this exchange, it does not appear to be inappropriate guidance when the issue of completion of work had been at that stage commonplace. However, it would seem that the inability to complete the work related more to his cognitive decline which was being noticed at that time.
The Tribunal’s finding is that the various attendances upon the Applicant regarding his performance at work were reasonable. There was a Performance Improvement Plan proposed on 30 July 2021. The statement of Ms H refers to assistance offered to the Applicant. Ms H also made a number of contacts with the Applicant following his leaving work.
Ms H said that she was not aware of the barrage of ill-treatment described as “nothing short of aggressive and threatening behaviour” until 14 August 2021. With regard to that email of 14 August 2021, it was written by the Applicant’s son. It said regarding his father:
“Unfortunately, he has endured a barrage of ill-treatment from allegedly trained ASO5 team leader with nothing short of aggressive and threatening behaviour. Initially rushed training for the first few weeks and progressively into this aggressive style of unbelievable pressure and threats of termination.”
As noted, the Applicant’s son could not have observed any of that. His only source of information would have been his father. The email went on to state:
“He now is a former shadow of himself. This well-groomed and well-spoken man now lays as a former shadow of himself …”
It is of interest that in the first report of Associate Professor Varma, the following is noted:
“He is, now, a former shadow of himself. He used to be a very groomed and well-spoken man but now he freaks out.”
In considering the evidence the Tribunal takes care to consider whether these events occurred or whether matters of narrative are just being repeated rather than corroborated.
CONCLUSION
The action complained of by the Applicant arising from the workplace is effectively bullying that he says that he was exposed to. The evidence does not support that bullying occurred in the way described by the Applicant. The evidence does support that he was suffering from medical conditions completely unrelated to his employment which would have caused him difficulty coping with his employment, whilst he was also having difficulty coping in his relationship and other life interactions. He has reacted to the turmoil of his frustration in being unable to use the computers. However, his employment did not cause the degeneration in his capacity.
Under section14(1) of the Act, the Respondent is liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in incapacity for work or impairment.
‘Injury’ is defined in section 5A of the Act as ‘A disease suffered by an employee’. Pursuant to section 5A(2), there are a number of exclusions based on reasonable administrative actions:
“(a)a reasonable appraisal of the employee's performance;
(b)a reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee’s employment;
(c)a reasonable suspension action in respect of the employee’s employment;
(d)a reasonable disciplinary action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee's employment;
(e)anything reasonable done in connection with an action mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d);
(f)anything reasonable done in connection with the employee's failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment.”
‘Disease’ is defined in section 5B of the Act and that includes an aggravation of an ailment that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth. ‘Significant degree’ means ‘a degree that is substantially more than material’.
‘Ailment’ includes ‘mental ailment’: section 4(1).
The Tribunal finds that work did not cause the underlying series of degenerative conditions as diagnosed by Dr Pajaro. The interactions at work of which the Applicant has complained such as screamed abuse and racism are not supported by contemporaneous evidence. He has certainly said the interactions occurred but that type of activity would seem quite against the weight of the support that was being provided to him.
The support provided and the handling of the Applicant’s employment situation all reflect reasonable administrative action. It was a response to his deterioration – not fully known to his employers – and it is difficult to consider if they could have done anything else to assist him in the circumstances.
The situation arose where he was frustrated by his problems with the computer, but these problems were caused by his degenerative conditions, not by mistreatment at work.
Associate Professor Varma considered there were three significant contributing factors to the Applicant’s mental state as at October 2021. The first was the alleged workplace bullying and harassment. The second was the circumstance of his divorce, and the third was the heart condition to which the Applicant has referred.
As noted from the general practitioner’s records, there were other matters affecting him as well. There is doubt as to the bullying and harassment occurring. To the contrary, support was provided at all times. Given the significant underlying medical condition, it was highly unlikely support would have helped his work on the computers. That conclusion is consistent with the evidence of Ms H.
The performance management considerations were appropriate because of his inability to cope, which is now clear as arising from his underlying condition. The evidence does not support the finding that the action was unreasonable or taken in an unreasonable manner. The evidence as noted does not support a finding that the Applicant was abused in the manner that he has described. It is a very unfortunate situation for him, being affected by these conditions, but it does not support a claim for compensation.
The evidence of Associate Professor Varma was that the Applicant’s ongoing condition was not mainly related to employment and he made that view following his second assessment of the Applicant in his report of 27 April 2023.
Associate Professor Varma went on to say that the Applicant’s condition had been contributed to, by a moderate degree, by his employment with Centrelink as per his perceptions. Although Professor Varma did place significant weight on the separation – it is clearly something that the Applicant believes to have mentioned twice - it is worth to note the history obtained by Dr Pajaro on 9 September 2024 that the Applicant’s wife said they had not separated.
Therefore, whilst Associate Professor Varma puts significant weight on the break-up of the marriage, that may never have occurred. Yet the Applicant’s belief in it has caused him a psychiatric injury.
Similarly, as noted, the evidence does not support the aggressive work situation that the Applicant has described.
The counselling and work management that occurred due to his problems functioning at work were reasonable, and in those circumstances if that caused a psychiatric condition, it does not give rise to eligibility for workers’ compensation because the exclusionary provisions in s 5A of the Act are satisfied.
In view of the nature of this decision and reference to people who were not involved in the proceedings the tribunal will restrict the identity of the Applicant and his family pursuant to section 70 of the ART Act 2024.
The Decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding ninety-six (96) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A Ward.
...........................[SGND]...................................
Feng J, Associate
Dated: 27 June 2025
Applicant:
Self-Represented
Counsel for the Respondent:
Solicitor for the Respondent:
P H d’Assumpcao
M La Vista
Exhibit Register
No. Date Lodged Lodged By DOCUMENT Exhibit No. STATEMENT OF FACTS, ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS 1 05.09.2024 Respondent Statement Of Facts, Issues And Contentions (dated 05.09.2024) T-DOCUMENTS 2 04.05.2022 Respondent T-Documents (114 pages) 1 3 13.07.2022 Respondent Supplementary T-Documents (150 pages) 2 APPLICANT DOCUMENTS 4 29.12.2022 Applicant Medical Reports and Appointment Details:
1. Removal of driver’s licence suspension letter (dated 22.02.2022)
2. Letter from Registrar of Motor Vehicles requesting a Certificate of Fitness to drive (dated 29.08.2022)
3. Letter confirming endocrine clinic appointment at RAH (dated 12.10.2022)
4. PET Brain appointment letter (dated 02.11.2022)
5. PET Scan study (dated 18.11.2022) (2 pages)
6. Medical Certificate by Medical Practitioner to Centrelink (dated 14.12.2022)
3
4
5
6
7
8
5 31.03.2023 Applicant Report by Consultant Geriatrician (dated 15.03.2023) 9 6 09.08.2023 Applicant Update to medical appointments email (dated 09.08.2023) 10 7 18.03.2024 Applicant Submission by Applicant via email (dated 18.03.2023) 11 8 10.05.2024 Applicant Medical Report by Dr Adeloisa Pajaro (dated 20.03.2024) 12 9 02.10.2024 Applicant Medical Report by Dr Adeloisa Pajaro (dated 09.09.2024) 13 RESPONDENTS DOCUMENTS 10 11.05.2023 Respondent 1. Briefing Letter to Associate Professor Shashjit Varma (dated 12.04.2023)
2. Report of A.P Shashjit Varma (dated 27.04.2023)
14 11 11.05.2023 Respondent Summons Documents tendered as exhibits – Extract of Churchill Family Practice for evidence (239 pages) 15 12 11.05.2023 Respondent · Summons Documents tendered as exhibits – Extract of CHG (6 pages)
· Summons Documents tendered as exhibits – Extract of Churchill Family Practice for evidence (duplicated of Tab 11)
16
17
13 30.01.2025 Respondent Submissions On Procedure
0
0
0