Eva Lotocka and Comcare
[2014] AATA 59
•6 February 2014
[2014] AATA 59
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number(s)
2011/2179
Re
Eva Lotocka
APPLICANT
And
Comcare
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member J Toohey
Date 6 February 2014 Place Sydney The decision under review is affirmed.
........................................................................
Senior Member J Toohey
Catchwords - COMPENSATION – bilateral hearing loss – call centre operator – acoustic shock – ambient noise – whether employment contributed to a significant degree to hearing loss – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 5A(1), 5B(1), 5B(3) and 14
Occupational Health and Safety (Noise) Regulation 2001
Cases
William Red and Comcare [2013] AATA 123
Secondary Materials
NSW Workcover Managing Noise and Preventing Hearing Loss at Work, Code of Practice 2011
Australian/New Zealand Standard on Occupational Noise Management (A/NZS 1269.2005)
National Standard for Occupational Noise (NOHSC: 1007 (2000)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member J Toohey
Background
Ms Eva Lotocka worked in the call centre of the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) from December 2002 until her resignation in June 2010.
In July 2009, the OEA became the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO).
In 2008, Ms Lotocka noticed she was having difficulty hearing. In May 2009, she was diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. She claims her hearing loss is the result of exposure to high levels of ambient noise in the call centre and noise from the handsets and headsets she had to use. She claims her hearing loss is an injury for which Comcare is liable under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) to compensate her.
Comcare does not dispute that Ms Lotocka suffers from bilateral hearing loss but denies it was the result of her employment.
Legislation
Comcare is liable to compensate an employee for an injury suffered by the employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or permanent impairment: s 14 of the Act.
Section 5A(1) provides that injury means:
(a)a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b)an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment; or
(c)an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment.
Disease in the Act means:
(a)an ailment suffered by an employee; or
(b)an aggravation of such an ailment;
that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee's employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee: s 5B(1). Significant degree means a degree that is substantially more than material: s 5B(3)
Ailment means any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development): s 4. It is agreed that Ms Lotocka’s bilateral hearing loss is an ailment within the meaning of the Act.
The issue
I have to determine whether Ms Lotocka’s employment contributed, to a significant degree, to her condition.
Ms Lotocka’s evidence
Ms Lotocka is aged 59. Throughout her employment with the OEA, she was employed full-time in the call centre. She spent most of her day on the telephone answering calls using a telephone handset or a headset. Occasionally she worked overtime.
From December 2002 to mid-2006, the call centre comprised four staff and was located in a small room, approximately 36 square metres in size. Some time in 2004 or 2005, as the call centre expanded, the room was reconfigured to accommodate six staff. From time to time, two or three trainees would also be in the room. I will refer to this as “the small room”.
Ms Lotocka gave evidence that the small room was cramped and uncomfortable, especially when there were nine people in there, and there was always a high level of conversational noise in the background.
Ms Lotocka gave evidence that says she complained “every time during the team meeting” to the team leaders about the level of noise in the small room. She said she never made a written complaint because she trusted her employer to follow the matter up.
During 2006, the call centre had grown to 40 to 50 staff and moved to a larger, open area within the same office. Ms Lotocka worked here for about eight months until the OEA relocated. I will refer to this room as “the larger room”. Ms Lotocka gave evidence that the noise level lessened once the call centre moved to the larger room but it was still loud.
In early 2007, the OEA moved to new offices. I will refer to this as “the new office”. For the first six months or so after the move, the call centre was situated on one level in a large open-plan space divided into two areas each housing about 60 staff. After several months it moved to a different floor where it accommodated up to 120 staff.
Use of handsets and headsets
Up until about 2007, employees had the option of using either a telephone handset or a headset when answering calls. Ms Lotocka would use the headset when she needed her hands free. After the relocation in 2007, they were provided with headsets only and no longer had the option of using handsets.
Whether using the handset or the headset, Ms Lotocka says she would sometimes have to hold it closer to her ear in order to hear the caller, or she would cup her hand over the headset in order to hear better, because of the background noise or the poor quality of the call. Although the background noise lessened after they moved from the small room, there was still a lot of background noise, and the noise through the headsets remained constant.
The headsets had a volume control which the operator could adjust depending on the volume of the call. Ms Lotocka gave evidence that the noise level during calls would fluctuate and sometimes there would be intrusive noises such as a baby crying or background outdoors noise if a caller was using a mobile phone; sometimes the fluctuations of noise would be sudden and unexpected, at others gradual. Sometimes there would be a “high pitching noise ‘weeeee’”. When that happened, the worst of her symptoms was “similar to electrocution”.
Ms Lotocka’s hearing difficulties
Ms Lotocka first saw her general practitioner, Dr Bogdan Bartos, about her hearing in May 2009. She gave evidence that, although she first noticed the problem in 2008, it came on gradually and she never thought it was a problem. Dr Bartos referred her to Dr Bernard Katzen, ear, nose and throat surgeon.
Dr Katzen’s reports, and reports of other specialists, are considered below. The history taken by the doctors is at odds in some respects with Ms Lotocka’s evidence.
Several doctors took a history from Ms Lotocka to the effect that she had not been exposed to excessive noise in the workplace and Dr Gil Kleiner recorded her as saying she had never experienced network noise over the headset. Giving oral evidence, Ms Lotocka denied making such statements or could not recall doing so. None of the other doctors recorded Ms Lotocka as saying she has experienced sudden or network noise through the headsets.
Giving oral evidence, Ms Lotocka initially said she usually held the headset against her right ear but sometimes against her left ear if, for example, she needed to write. Dr Gil Kleiner also recorded that she told him she usually held the head set against her right ear. However, when it was put to Ms Lotocka that the medical evidence was that her hearing loss was more severe on the left side, she said she wore the headset on both sides equally. I am satisfied that what she said initially, and what she told Dr Kleiner is correct and that she only said she wore it on both sides because she thought it would advance her claim.
Those inconsistencies lead me to conclude that Ms Lotocka’s evidence is not entirely reliable.
Evidence of Mr Laviano
Mr Gus Laviano has worked at OEA and FWO since 2004. From mid-2004, he relieved in the call centre as required. He estimates that, up until 2006, he worked in the call centre about half a dozen times for up to four to six weeks at a time, a total of about 12 weeks. From 2007, he spent occasional periods of up to four hours relieving others. From June 2009, he worked full-time in the call centre.
Mr Laviano gave evidence that there was a “cluttered sound” in the small room; there were competing voices and it was “quite loud” for most of the time. He said he had to speak louder than normal to be heard if standing one metre away from someone and they had to raise their voice in return. He agreed with Ms Lotocka that the noise level decreased once the call centre moved to the larger room but said it was still loud.
Mr Laviano has also been a workplace health and safety representative. In that capacity, he would report incidents of concern. Ten incident reports, most concerning occasions of loud noise over the headset, and most lodged by Mr Laviano himself, are in evidence. There is no evidence that Ms Lotocka complained to him in that capacity about noise levels.
I have no reason to doubt Mr Laviano’s evidence but it is of limited assistance. He supports Ms Lotocka’s claim that there was background noise in the call centre and that it was more noticeable in the small room than in the other rooms where she worked. The fact that the noise over his and other’s headset was loud on occasions tells me no more than that; it tells me nothing about Ms Lotocka’s hearing loss.
The purported significance of having to raise one’s voice when speaking to a person at a distance of one metre is considered below.
Recordings made by Mr Laviano
Ms Lotocka’s representative, Mr Red, sought at the hearing to tender a number of recordings made by Mr Laviano in the call centre for training purposes. They had not been disclosed to the Tribunal before the hearing. Mr Red submitted they would establish the noise levels that Ms Lotocka was subjected to.
I declined to admit the recordings into evidence. Section 66(1) of the Act makes them inadmissible without leave but, even if I granted leave, they would not assist me. I accept the evidence of Mr Richard Haydon, an acoustics expert whose evidence is considered below, that the placement of equipment used to measure noise levels is “critical” to the accuracy of any tests.
Mr Laviano has no expertise in sound recording, measurement or analysis. No evidence is available from anyone with specialist expertise as to the conditions under which the recordings were made. Nor have any been assessed by an acoustic technician or anyone else with specialist expertise. Merely listening to them would tell me nothing of probative value about Ms Lotocka’s hearing loss.
Material produced under summons
Under summons issued on behalf of Ms Lotocka, the FWO produced recordings of some 29 calls taken by call centre staff between January 2011 and 2012. I understand such recordings are routinely made for quality assurance and training purposes.
All of the recordings were of calls taken after Ms Lotocka left FWO. Again, no evidence is available from anyone with specialist expertise as to the conditions under which the recordings were made and none have been assessed by anyone with specialist expertise. Listening to them would tell me nothing of probative value about Ms Lotocka’s hearing loss. I therefore declined to accept them into evidence.
Evidence of Anthea Stavrakis and Michael Clarke
Ms Stavrakis has been employed by the OEA and FWO since 2006. She started as a Team Leader in the call centre but did not supervise Ms Lotocka. Since 2009 she has been an Assistant Director in the Major Employers and Education Branch.
Ms Stavrakis gave evidence about new headsets introduced in 2008. She said she was not given training in how to use them because “they were pretty straightforward to use”. During her time in the call centre, she did not experience any “episodes of acoustic shock”; she found the background noise in the office comfortable and it did not disrupt her work.
Mr Clarke is the Executive Director of the FWO Info Line. He has been employed by the OEA and FWO since 2006. His evidence about the layout and staffing of the offices in which the call centre was located at different times and the hours generally worked by staff accorded with Ms Lotocka’s evidence.
Mr Clarke gave evidence about the headsets supplied to staff around March 2006. He said full training was provided and they were “recognised as the best headsets available at that time”. He described the conversational noise in the call centre as “a low murmur or buzz” which could certainly be heard but was not a loud noise.
I have no reason to doubt the evidence given by Ms Stavrakis and Mr Clarke but it does no more than help me understand the conditions generally in the workplace.
The “One metre rule”
For Ms Lotocka it is submitted that the application of the “One metre rule” demonstrates that background noise levels in the call centre were at levels injurious to her hearing and were its most probable cause. It is submitted that her evidence, that she and persons she spoke to had to raise their voices to hear each other when standing one metre apart, is proof that noise levels were at 85 decibels.
Described in some workplace safety guides as a “rule of thumb”, the one metre rule is described in the Australian/New Zealand Standard on Occupational Noise Management (A/NZS 1269.2005) as follows:
As a practical measure many organizations make it a rule that people must wear hearing protectors whenever they are in areas or operating equipment where the immission level exceeds a specified value, such as 85 dB(A).
The noise level may be determined by either a direct measurement through the use of a sound level meter or through subjective judgment.
One commonly used subjective judgment technique is that if ambient noise is sufficiently loud to force two people to use raised voices to communicate when approximately one metre apart, then the noise level LAeq,T probably exceeds 85dB(A).
This submission misunderstands the “One metre rule”. It is no more than a rule of thumb. Merely because two people have to raise their voices when standing one metre apart does not mean that the ambient noise level is 85dB. One explanation is that one or both has a hearing loss. Nor does it follow, because a person has to raise their voice occasionally, that ambient noise levels are injurious. Exposure over extended periods is required: see, for example, NSW Workcover Managing Noise and Preventing Hearing Loss at Work, Code of Practice 2011; National Standard for Occupational Noise (NOHSC: 1007 (2000); also the evidence of doctors and Mr Haydon, below.
A number of workplace safety guides have been submitted for Ms Lotocka. A number refer to the “One metre rule”. All emphasise the technical nature of acoustic measurement and analysis. For example, the NSW Workcover Code of Practice (above) states:
A noise assessment should be done by a competent person in accordance with the procedures in AS/NZA 1269.1 Measurement and assessment of noise immission and exposure. The more complex the situation, the more knowledgeable and experienced the person needs to be.
A competent person is one who has accurately calibrated noise measuring instruments and, through training and experience:
· understands what is required by the WHS Regulations for noise
· knows how to check the performance of the instruments
· knows how to take the measurements properly
· can interpret the results of the noise measurements.
A person’s subjective assessment on the basis of the “One metre rule” cannot supplant a competent, expert assessment such as undertaken by Mr Haydon. His evidence is considered below.
Report Dr Katzen
On 5 May 2009, Dr Katzen reported to Dr Bartos. He noted:
[Ms Lotocka] has never been exposed to loud noise. Her family has noticed she is hard of hearing and she is beginning to find it difficult to work because of the inability to hear clearly. Her right ear is worse than her left … The television has to be turned up loudly much to the chagrin. She wears headphones to listen to the television. If she is in a room with a lot of ambient noise [she] tends to become confused. It is becoming embarrassing at work for her and she finds that if there is a background noise on the phone when somebody speaks to her, it is very difficult for her to understand.
Dr Katzen noted that an audiogram revealed “a moderately severe bilateral mixed deafness with an industrial component in both the right as well as in the left ear at different frequencies”. It is not clear what he meant by “with an industrial component”. It may have been no more than a reference to Ms Lotocka’s reported difficulty hearing at work. Dr Katzen was not called to give evidence.
Giving evidence, Ms Lotocka denied telling Dr Katzen that she had never been exposed to loud noise and maintained she told him she was exposed to loud noise every day at work. She could not recall telling him that her hearing was worse on the right side and she maintained it was equally bad on both.
Evidence of Dr Kleiner
Dr Kleiner, ear nose and throat specialist, saw Ms Lotocka for assessment in November 2009, February 2010, August 2012 and October 2013. He has provided written reports and gave oral evidence.
On 2 February 2010, Dr Kleiner reported that Ms Lotocka complained of decreased hearing “predominantly in the left ear over the last few years”. He noted:
She wears the earphone, usually over the right ear. She has told me the noise that she experiences comes predominantly from her co-workers and there is incessant loud noise. She has never experienced network noise over her headphones.
Dr Kleiner reported that audiology revealed that Ms Lotocka had a mild to moderately severe hearing loss in the right ear and a moderate to severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear. He reported:
The pattern of her hearing loss in the low frequencies is not consistent with excessive noise exposure. I am not sure if the levels of noise in the work centre exceed 85 decibels but if they do, then I am will (sic) to accept that the hearing loss at 2, 3 and 4 kHz on the right ear is caused by the noise exposure.
Dr Kleiner recommended that noise levels at Ms Lotocka’s place of work be measured and that she have an MRI to exclude retrocochlear pathology.
Ms Lotocka gave evidence that said she did not recall telling Dr Kleiner she had never experienced network noise over the headset. She was confident that she told him there were different kinds of noises, some of them “unbearable” “pitching noises”. She denied telling him she usually wore the headset on the right side and said she would swap from side to side according to what was comfortable and whether she needed to write.
Dr Kleiner was confident that his notes reflected what Ms Lotocka told him: that she had never experienced network noise over the headphones; that she usually wore it over her right ear; and that, had she told him there was sometimes “unbearable” noise over the headset that felt “similar to electrocution”, he would have recorded that.
I am satisfied that Dr Kleiner’s notes record accurately what Ms Lotocka told him.
In a further report on 2 August 2012, Dr Kleiner noted that Ms Lotocka told him that day that, from 2002 to 2007, she worked in a very small room with six workers where there were very high noise levels; the noise level was slightly lower in the larger office and the new office. He reported:
It would appear therefore that the noise levels at the original call centre was (sic) greater than 85 decibels and therefore I am quite happy to say that the figures that I produced in my initial report are due to noise exposure sustained at that time.
Giving oral evidence, Dr Kleiner said his assessment that noise levels exceeded 85 decibels was based purely on the history Ms Lotocka gave him and not on any objective measurement. He had no reason to dispute the findings of Mr Richard Haydon, that noise levels did not reach 85 decibels in the new office.
Dr Kleiner agreed that it would be relevant to know the noise levels in the smaller rooms and appropriate to test them. However, he said, conversational noise, as opposed to industrial noise, will not cause hearing loss; exposure must be to noise above 85 decibels continuously over four of an eight-hour period on a recurring basis in order to cause damage. Moreover, the audiogram that showed Ms Lotocka’s hearing loss in the low frequencies was not consistent with excessive noise exposure and not typical of someone with industrial deafness.
Report of Dr Walker
Dr John Walker, consultant ear nose and throat surgeon, saw Ms Lotocka for assessment on 9 December 2010.
On 16 December 2010, Dr Walker reported that Ms Lotocka told him her deafness first started to trouble her about two years earlier, more so in the left ear than the right; she noticed difficulty hearing voices and increasing difficulty hearing voices on the telephone; her hearing had gradually become worse, particularly in her left ear in the last 12 months. He noted:
She has not been exposed to any noise apart from her work and very little noise at work.
Dr Walker conducted an audiogram and found 63 per cent binaural hearing loss. He diagnosed “bilateral sensorineural deafness of as yet undetermined origin” and noted that the cause of the deafness particularly in the left ear was under investigation by her doctors. In his opinion, there was no history of noise exposure in her employment at FWO that would explain her hearing loss which he thought had been gradually progressing for more than two years. As to Ms Lotocka’s need to turn the up the volume of the headset, he said:
It would seem however that the noise exposure from the increased telephone volume was the effect of her deafness not cause of it.
Evidence of Dr Dowe
Dr Andrew Dowe, consultant ear nose and throat surgeon, saw Ms Lotocka on 4 December 2012 for assessment. He has provided a written report and gave oral evidence.
Dr Dowe reported that Ms Lotocka suffered a “severe neurosensory hearing loss of unknown origin”. He was not certain of its cause and presumed it was constitutional. He did not think acoustic shock or excessive ambient noise contributing factors to hearing loss of her severity. Nor did he think turning up the volume on the headset a contributing factor because there was a limit to how far it could be turned up.
Dr Dowe noted that, based on an audiogram taken since Ms Lotocka ceased employment, her hearing did not appear to have deteriorated significantly. He considered that significant because it is generally agreed that, where hearing loss is due to loud noise, it will not deteriorate once exposure to the noise ceases.
Giving oral evidence, Dr Dowe said he had no note, and he could not remember, Ms Lotocka saying the loud noise down the phone could feel like being electrocuted; had she done so, he would have recorded it. He said her hearing loss was “very very severe” in both ears but worse in the left. Her pattern of hearing loss particularly in the low tones was not consistent with acoustic trauma or shock. He explained that many cases of hearing loss are unexplained and can be due to age, genetic and physiological factors. He did not think Ms Lotocka’s employment contributed significantly to her hearing loss.
As to whether Ms Lotocka had been exposed to noise levels above 85 decibels, Dr Dowe said that level is equivalent to the constant use of a low loader, or similar, and it was never established that she had been exposed to that level of noise. He thought it “extremely unlikely” she was ever exposed to that level between 2002 and 2007; he would be “astounded” if she had.
Evidence of Richard Haydon, Acoustic Dynamics
Mr Haydon is an acoustical consultant with expertise in assessing noise, vibration and air quality. He was engaged by the respondent in April 2012 to test the ambient noise levels at the new office and the noise from the headsets used by Ms Lotocka. He was also asked to review a number of audio recordings of telephone calls taken by Ms Lotocka in May and June 2010 and selected by her as representative of the kinds of calls that contributed to her injury. In an email on 31 October 2011, Ms Lotocka described the calls as “noisy, almost unbearable to continue conversations”.
Prior to conducting his assessment, Mr Haydon was provided with reports of the audiograms dated 4 May 2009, 26 December 2009 and 9 December 2010, and with reports of Drs Katzen, Kleiner and Walker. During his visit to the office, he interviewed three FWO employees about how headsets are typically used and to gain an understanding of noise levels in the call centre generally. He has provided a detailed report of his assessment and gave oral evidence.
Tests were conducted for Mr Haydon by National Acoustics Laboratories (NAL). The results are technical and include measurements in terms of “average equivalent” and “maximum” noise levels, and weighted decibel levels.
Mr Haydon concluded that the ambient background levels at the FWO call centre were “typical of a call centre” and did not include any noise likely to cause damage to hearing or likely to require the operator to reduce the protection setting or increase the volume on their headset.
Two models of headsets used by Ms Lotocka were tested by NAL for compliance with recognised standards. Mr Haydon concluded that, when used correctly, they were “likely to be able to provide adequate protection to prevent excessive noise and acoustic shock”.
NAL also tested the 11 audio recordings selected by Ms Lotocka. Mr Haydon reported that none included a sudden rise or spike in noise levels of the kind with potential to lead to acoustic shock injury. None had peak noise levels exceeding 140 dB(C) peak; the highest level measured was 117 dB(C).
Mr Haydon gave evidence that, within NSW, the Occupational Health and Safety (Noise) Regulation 2001 sets as limits for occupational noise above which administrative or engineering noise control measures are required: eight hours exposure to a continuous LAeq (Average Energy Equivalent) level of 85 dB(A); and noise levels that peak above 140 dB(C).
Mr Haydon gave evidence that it does not follow, from the measurement of an LAeq level of 85 dB(A), that hearing damage necessarily occurs with exposure to that level; exposure equivalent to that level over eight hours is required. He found no evidence that Ms Lotocka was exposed to such levels.
Mr Haydon also gave evidence that among the principal characteristics of noise-induced hearing loss identified by the American College of Occupational and Acoustic Medicine is that it does not progress in excess of what would be expected on account of age, once exposure to the noise ceases.
The tests conducted for Mr Haydon of ambient background noise were confined to the new office. He did not test either of the smaller offices and, in particular, the small office where Ms Lotocka says the background noise was loudest. He agreed that a smaller room may increase the background noise by up to four decibels but, given average levels normally found in offices, he did not consider that significant. By his calculation of usual background noise, that increase would put the ambient noise level in the small office at about 61 decibels, well below that needed to cause hearing loss.
Report of Dr Keith Dawes, psychologist, report 15 August 2012
Dr Dawes is a psychologist. He saw Ms Lotocka in August 2012 for assessment. In a report dated 12 August 2012, he concluded that she suffered from “deafness caused by industrial noise” due to her call centre work, which finding was supported by medical evidence, and she had become depressed and anxious as a result.
Any psychological injury that Ms Lotocka claims to have suffered as a result of her employment is not the subject of these proceedings.
I declined to hear evidence from Dr Dawes in person. There is no question as to his qualifications as a psychologist but there is nothing to suggest that he has any qualifications or expertise in hearing impairments or noise measurement. His reference to medical evidence is apparently to reports from Ms Lotocka’s doctors including clinical notes, an audiology report from Dr Yu on 16 December 2012 and Dr Kleiner’s report, copies of which were provided to him.
I note that the Tribunal, differently constituted, came to the same conclusion about Dr Dawes’ expertise in another matter in which a claim was made for employment related tinnitus: William Red and Comcare [2013] AATA 123.
Consideration
I am not satisfied, on the material before me, that Ms Lotocka’s employment played any role in her hearing loss, much less contributed to it to a significant degree.
I accept that Mr Haydon’s testing was limited in that he only tested noise levels in the new office. I accept that the noise levels may have been greater in the small office where Ms Lotocka worked up until 2006 but I accept Dr Dowe’s expert opinion that it would be most unlikely for there to be noise at a level in such an environment that would cause hearing loss. Dr Kleiner agreed. Dr Walker in his report also agreed.
The overwhelming weight of the medical evidence is that Ms Lotocka’s hearing loss is not related to her employment. The opinion of three ear, nose and throat specialists is that she has severe hearing loss, of unknown but probably constitutional origin, unrelated to her employment.
I am not satisfied that Ms Lotocka experienced the kinds of noise over the headsets that she claims. Dr Kleiner recorded that she said she had not experienced noise over the headset. I accept his evidence and prefer it to Ms Lotocka’s claim that she told him about such noise. None of the other doctors recorded her telling them about noise over the headsets. If anything, she tended to disclaim any noise at work. I am satisfied that, had she done so, at least one of them would have recorded that. Even if she did experience occasional loud noises over the headset, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that it played any part in her hearing loss.
Conclusion
For these reasons, I am not satisfied that Ms Lotocka’s employment contributed, to a significant degree, to her hearing loss. It follows that her claim must fail.
I affirm the decision under review
I certify that the preceding 83 (eighty-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms J Toohey, Senior Member.
............................................................
Associate
Dated 6 February 2014