Findlay and Comcare

[2008] AATA 808

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 808

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q 2005/746, Q 2005/747,

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)         Q 2006/691, Q 2006/692 & 2007/3175
Re		SHERRILL FINDLAY

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal M J Carstairs, Senior Member
Assoc Prof J B Morley RFD, Member

Date11 September 2008

PlaceBrisbane (heard in Murwillumbah)

Decision In each of applications Q2005/746, Q2005/747, Q2006/691, Q2006/692 and 2007/3175, the Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.

......................[sgd]........................

SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – injury – neck condition – whether injury results in incapacity to work –Tribunal affirms reviewable decision

COMPENSATION – injury – assessment of degree of impairment – whether degree of impairment less than 10% – whether impairment permanent – Tribunal affirms reviewable decision

COMPENSATION – costs associate with medical treatment – cost of travel – distances travelled – whether necessary – Tribunal affirms reviewable decision

COMPENSATION – other claimed conditions – whether conditions are related to employment – Tribunal affirms reviewable decision

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), ss 4, 16, 19, 24

Findlay and Comcare [2005] AATA 206
Lees v Comcare (1999) 56 ALD 84

REASONS FOR DECISION

11 September 2008 M J Carstairs, Senior Member
Assoc Prof J B Morley RFD, Member

1.      In these applications, Sherrill Findlay seeks review of decisions refusing a number of claims she has made upon Comcare with respect to different heads of compensation.  We must decide whether she is entitled to incapacity payments; to payments for permanent impairment; to payments for travel to medical appointments; and whether Comcare is liable to pay compensation for a range of other medical conditions which she says are related to her existing accepted medical conditions.

2.      Ms Findlay worked as a batch clerk for the Commonwealth Bank from about 1974 until she took retrenchment in 1993.  Comcare later accepted and paid compensation payments for the condition of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, having accepted that the condition was related to her duties at the Commonwealth Bank, including lifting heavy bags of coins and operating electronic adding machines.  Later medical evidence indicated that Ms Findlay had recovered from bilateral carpal tunnel condition.  Since leaving her employment, Ms Findlay has been diagnosed with a number of other medical conditions.

3.      Importantly, for the matters now before us, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in an earlier decision (Findlay and Comcare [2005] AATA 206) had been called upon to determine Comcare’s liability for her neck condition. The Tribunal in that case decided that Ms Findlay’s neck condition, described by doctors as “degenerative C4/5 and C5/6 spondylosis”, was work related. One doctor in particular, Dr R Cooke, orthopaedic surgeon, thought that the condition did stem from Ms Findlay’s work at the bank. His view carried the day, despite finding little support in other medical opinion. A number of other doctors thought Ms Findlay’s were merely degenerative changes, consistent with aging.

4.      The respondent, while noting that the weight of the medical evidence even now suggests that any…