Douglas Williams and Telstra Corporation Ltd

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 168

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/3011

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		Douglas Williams

Applicant

And Telstra Corporation Ltd

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Mr G L McDonald, Deputy President

Dr R McRae, Member

Date10 March 2010

PlaceMelbourne

Decision The decision under review is set aside and a decision is substituted that the respondent is liable to pay for the applicant’s proposed left total knee joint replacement arthroplasty.

......(sgd. G L McDonald)......

Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – left knee locked during employment – tear in the lateral meniscus – tri‑compartmental advanced arthritis – total knee joint arthroplasty – whether applicant’s work activity contributed to his condition – permanent deterioration – decision under review set aside

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 37

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 s 4

Accident Compensation Commission v McIntosh [1991] 2 VR 253

Health Insurance Commission v Van Reesch (1996) 45 ALD 302

Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Limited (1996) 140 ALR 156

REASONS FOR DECISION

10 March 2010	Mr G L McDonald, Deputy President
Dr R McRae, Member

The Application

1.      The applicant is applying for the review of a 7 April 2008 determination, made under the provisions of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act), and affirmed on review on 10 June 2008, in which it was decided that the respondent was not liable to pay compensation for a left total knee joint replacement arthroplasty.

The Hearing

2. At the hearing the Tribunal had before it the documents filed for purposes of s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.  As well as the applicant giving oral evidence, Dr Minoo Patel, his treating orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Russell Miller an orthopaedic surgeon who examined and reported on his condition and the applicant’s general medical practitioner Dr Ng gave oral evidence on behalf of the applicant.  Mr Peter Lugg who is also an orthopaedic surgeon examined the applicant on two occasions and provided written reports and gave oral evidence on behalf of the respondent.  The Tribunal accepts all three orthopaedic surgeons who gave evidence as being very experienced and highly qualified in their field.

The Evidence

3.      The applicant was born on 18 November 1954.  He is a communications technician and has worked in that capacity since the age of 21 until March 2007, including working for the respondent since 1986.  On 22 March 2007 the applicant was allocated work in South Melbourne where he was to repair a defective line connection in an underground Telstra installation known as a pit.  In the course of preparing to commence work at the site the applicant’s left knee locked and he was unable to move or unlock it.  He telephoned his team manager who attended the site and arranged for an ambulance to take the applicant to the Epworth Hospital emergency department.  Later that day the applicant was seen by Dr Patel who manipulated the left knee and it unlocked.…