De La Torre-Greene and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant for an extension of time to lodge a request for reconsideration of a determination made by Comcare. The Applicant had suffered a left shoulder injury, which she claimed was a consequence of compensating for an accepted right wrist injury. Comcare had issued a letter on 29 August 2017, which the Applicant argued constituted a determination regarding her left shoulder condition. The Applicant subsequently lodged a request for reconsideration of this determination on 21 or 22 September 2017, approximately 600 days after the initial letter.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Comcare letter of 29 August 2017 constituted a reviewable "determination" in relation to the Applicant's left shoulder injury, and consequently, whether the Applicant's request for reconsideration was lodged within the statutory time limit. If the letter was not a determination, or if the reconsideration request was out of time, the Tribunal would need to consider the principles governing applications for extensions of time, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the application, and any prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal considered the definition of a "determination" under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1991* (Cth) and relevant case law, including *Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond*. It noted that a reviewable decision is generally one that is final or determinative of an issue, rather than a step in a broader reasoning process. The Tribunal found ambiguity in the 29 August 2017 letter, observing that while it was headed "determination of no present liability" and discussed the shoulder claim, it also appeared to be part of a broader assessment of the accepted right wrist injury. The Tribunal also noted that Comcare's referral to Dr Thai sought advice on the compensability of the shoulder claim within the context of managing the accepted claim.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision, indicating that the Applicant had failed to adequately address the significant delay in lodging her reconsideration request and had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for an extension of time. The Applicant's submission that the letter constituted a determination of the shoulder condition within the time limit was not accepted.