Fache and Australian Postal Corporation - [2003] AATA 1022

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 1022
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) N2001/1004

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re TRICIA FACHE

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal P. J. Lindsay, Senior Member
Dr M.E.C. Thorpe, Member
Date9 October 2003
PlaceSydney

Decision The tribunal affirms the decision under review.
(sgd) P.J. Lindsay, Senior Member

On 31 October 1996 the applicant lodged a claim for rehabilitation and compensation (T5-36).
4. On 6 November 1996 Ms Fache made the following statement regarding her injury on 4 September 1996 and subsequent events (T5-42):
On September 4^th 1996 I injured my lower back while lifting a Postal Backpack loaded with Ad Packs. On returning to Newtown Post Office at the conclusion of my run, I reported this to my superiors, Mark Longhurst and Shayne Fahey. The following day 5^th Sept 1996 I attended work and fulfilled my duties with quite a deal of pain in my lower back. The pain was so severe that I called in sick on Friday 6^th Sept. … On resuming work on the 9^th Sept I was still in a lot of pain, as a result my superiors had reduced the intensity of my run until I received a trolley to use instead of a backpack. From the 16^th Sept I was back on full runs using the trolley.
I continued to have chronic pain in my lower back the severity of which was very debilitating. On Monday 23^rd Sept I worked a particularly heavy run due to excessive mail. At the conclusion of this run the pain in my back had intensified. I called in sick on Tues 24^th Sept as I no longer could tolerate the pain. It was at this stage I sought medical advice. My doctor advised me to take sick leave for 4 days from Wednesday 24^th Sept to Friday 27^th Sept. I returned to work the following Monday 30^th Sept and Tuesday 1^st October. This work once again aggravated my lower back causing me extreme pain. I called in sick on Wed 2^nd October so I could once again seek medical advice from my doctor. As the pain was ongoing and easily aggravated by minimal exertion, my doctor advised me to cease work and begin an intensive rehabilitation process involving physiotherapy.
Presently I am attending physiotherapy three times a week and performing light duties at work. …

5. The respondent accepted Ms Fache’s claim, describing the injury as ‘lower back pain - soft tissue (ligament & muscle strain)’ and commenced payment of weekly compensation (T7). The applicant attended a workplace assessment on 6 November 1996 where it was recommended that she initially be placed on indoor duties with a gradual reduction in lifting restrictions over an eight week period (T6). There was another workplace assessment on 6 January 1997. Following this assessment it was recommended that the applicant undertake further restricted duties over a nine…

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 Fache 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: [2003] AATA 1022
Decision Date: 9 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fache brought a claim against the Australian Postal Corporation for workers' compensation following an injury to his lower left back during his employment. The dispute centred on whether Fache was entitled to compensation for the permanent impairment of his lower back and lower limbs. The case was heard and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia. The legal issues before the tribunal were whether the injury Fache sustained during his employment constituted a permanent impairment and, if so, whether he was entitled to compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

The tribunal considered the evidence presented and the relevant legal principles, particularly the definition of 'injury' under the Act and the applicable case law. The tribunal found that the injury to Fache's lower left back met the criteria for a compensable injury under the Act. It also found that the injury had resulted in a permanent impairment of Fache's lower back and lower limbs. The tribunal examined the authorities, including Collins v Repatriation Commission and Re Brouwer and Australian Postal Commission, to determine the appropriate compensation. The tribunal concluded that the decision to deny compensation was incorrect and affirmed the original decision in favour of Fache.

The tribunal's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal framework. It found that the injury Fache sustained during his employment met the criteria for a compensable injury under the Act and that the injury had resulted in a permanent impairment. The tribunal concluded that Fache was entitled to compensation for the permanent impairment of his lower back and lower limbs. The tribunal's decision was affirmed, and the original decision in favour of Fache was reinstated.

Orders

Orders of the court

The tribunal affirms the decision 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.