DOUGLAS And AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION - [2010] AATA 479

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 479
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/0934

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
)               2008/0935
                2008/1678
                2008/3803

Re STEVEN DOUGLAS

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal M J Carstairs, Senior Member and Dr J B Morley, Member
Date25 June 2010
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

....................[Sgd]..........................
Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – Entitlement to continued compensation – Degenerative shoulder condition – Liability accepted for aggravation of underlying shoulder condition – Aggravation no longer the effective reason for symptoms – Capable of full-time work on restricted duties – Compensation payments ceased – No entitlement to partial incapacity payments – Reviewable decisions affirmed.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – Entitlement to compensation – Aggravation of degenerative shoulder condition – Not aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, employment – Not contributed to, to a significant degree, by employment – Symptoms caused by natural progression of underlying age-related degenerative condition – Reviewable decision affirmed.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), ss 5A, 5B, 14
Australian Postal Corporation v Bessey (2001) 32 AAR 508
REASONS FOR DECISION

25 June 2010 M J Carstairs, Senior Member and Dr J B Morley, Member

1.      Steven Douglas has applied to the Tribunal for review of four decisions concerning his compensation for a shoulder injury described by Australia Post as an “exacerbation musculo-ligamentous soft tissue injury to cervical-thoracic-lumbar area and left shoulder”.[1] Mr Douglas sustained one such injury while working as a postal officer at the Underwood Mail Centre in September 2007 (“the 2007 injury”). He also made another claim with respect to his left shoulder in February the following year (“the 2008 incident”).
[1] 2008/0934, T280.
2.      Mr Douglas has worked at Australia Post for almost 20 years. It can fairly be said, and indeed it is not disputed by the respondent, that Mr Douglas has a problem shoulder.
3.      The question pivotal to all the matters now in dispute is the extent to which Mr Douglas’s shoulder problem is due to his work as a mail officer at Australia Post. The background facts to the four reviewable decisions are quite confined as the relevant events take place within a short timeframe (effectively from September 2007 to mid-2008).
4.      During the incident which resulted in the 2007 injury, Mr Douglas experienced pain from his neck down his left side and into his lower back and buttock[2] after putting a parcel into a Unit Lifting Device. In the past, the respondent had paid Mr Douglas compensation for injuries to his neck, upper back and left shoulder.
[2] 2008/0934, T274.
5.      Soon after the 2007 injury, the respondent accepted liability for it[3] and paid compensation accordingly. In the ensuing months, Mr Douglas’s treating doctors provided opinions indicating that his shoulder was steadily improving and that he was able to undertake progressively extended hours of work. A number of “return-to-work plans” were provided to us. The return to work was supervised by Ms…

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 DOUGLAS 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: [2010] AATA 479
Decision Date: 25 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Douglas v Australian Postal Corporation, the matter before the court was a dispute over the entitlement to continued workers' compensation payments for a degenerative shoulder condition. The Australian Postal Corporation had accepted liability for aggravating the underlying shoulder condition of the claimant. However, the corporation ceased compensation payments, arguing that the claimant was now capable of full-time work on restricted duties. The claimant sought to have the decision reviewed, arguing that he was entitled to partial incapacity payments.

The legal issues before the court were whether the claimant was entitled to continued compensation payments and whether the aggravation of his shoulder condition arose out of, or in the course of, his employment. The court had to consider whether the aggravation of the condition was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employment or whether the symptoms were caused by the natural progression of the underlying age-related degenerative condition.

The court found that the aggravation of the claimant's shoulder condition was no longer the effective reason for his symptoms, and that the natural progression of his underlying age-related degenerative condition was the primary cause. The court also found that the aggravation of the condition was not contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employment. Therefore, the court held that the claimant was not entitled to partial incapacity payments. The reviewable decisions of the Australian Postal Corporation were affirmed, and the Tribunal upheld the decisions under review.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		) 2008/0935 2008/1678 2008/3803
Re		STEVEN DOUGLAS