Goel and DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a dispute between Mr Goel and DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd concerning a claim for compensation. Mr Goel sought a finding of liability for injuries to his right wrist, which he contended led to entitlement for medical expenses and incapacity payments. DHL Supply Chain had initially accepted liability for a muscular strain of the right arm and scapula but later denied liability for further medical expenses and incapacity payments related to the wrist.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Goel's wrist condition formed part of his accepted claim for compensation, and consequently, whether DHL Supply Chain was liable for medical expenses and incapacity payments related to that injury. The Tribunal also had to consider the scope of its jurisdiction in determining the extent of the applicant's injuries, particularly in light of the respondent's submission that the wrist injury was not properly part of the claim.

The Tribunal reasoned that a claim form referring to "Muscular strain of right scapular pectoral and arm muscle, wrist" constituted sufficient notice of injury to the wrist. It applied the principle that a claim form can serve as notice of injury, citing *Comcare v Luck*, and that the Tribunal is not bound by the description of an injury by an earlier decision-maker, as established in *Telstra Corporation v Hannaford*. The Tribunal found that the evidence supported the conclusion that Mr Goel's wrist condition, specifically a tear in the triangular fibrocartilage complex and inflammation and aggravation of degenerative change, was a consequence of his employment duties.

The Tribunal set aside the respondent's decision of 24 June 2020 and substituted it with a decision that DHL Supply Chain was liable to pay compensation under s 14 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* in respect of the applicant's right wrist injuries. The matter was remitted to the respondent for determination of any compensation arising from these injuries, and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs.