Golledge and Comcare - [2004] AATA 807

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 807
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No A2002/289 & 470

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re MAUREEN GOLLEDGE
Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr G A Mowbray
Date3 August 2004
PlaceCanberra
Decision
The Tribunal affirms the reviewable decisions of 24 June 2002 and 4 November 2002.

.............SGN GA Mowbray...........
Member

CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – RSI – upper limbs – spine – further or new impairment – chronic pain disorder – somatisation disorder – factitious disorder – impairment – permanent – household assistance – decisions affirmed
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) sections 4, 24, 28, 29, 124
Guide to the assessment of the degree of permanent impairment Tables 5.1, 9.4 and 9.6
Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission (1989) 86 ALR 399
Comcare v Moon (2003) 75 ALD 160
Re Frosch and Comcare (2003) 38 AAR 364
Comcare v Hill (1999) 56 ALD 487
Department of Defence v West (1998) 156 ALR 651
Re Trajanoski and Comcare [2003] AATA 385
Comcare v Nichols [1999] FCA 209
ReQuinn and Australian Postal Corporation (1992) 15 AAR 519
Re Chowdhary and Comcare [1998] AATA 448
REASONS FOR DECISION

3 August 2004         Mr G A Mowbray
Summary
1.        Mrs Maureen Golledge was working as a typist in 1984 when she was diagnosed with “repetitive strain injury” (RSI) for which Comcare accepted liability in early 1985. She retired from her job on invalidity grounds later in 1985. Mrs Golledge has been receiving household support due to her condition for many years although in 2002 the level of support was reduced. In 2001 Mrs Golledge sought compensation for permanent impairment to her upper limbs, to her neck and for a number of psychological conditions related to her RSI. This decision covers both the level of household support and the claims for compensation for permanent impairment.
2.        I have concluded that Mrs Golledge does have a five percent whole person permanent impairment to her neck due to her RSI. But I am not satisfied that she has a permanent impairment to her right arm. Nor am I satisfied that Mrs Golledge has a permanent impairment due to any psychological condition. As her total whole person permanent impairment is less than ten percent Mrs Golledge is not entitled to compensation.
3.        Further I am satisfied that there has been a change in Mrs Golledge’s personal circumstances such that she requires no more than the three hours household assistance each week allowed by Comcare.
4.        I have therefore affirmed both the reviewable decisions.
Background
5.        Mrs Golledge was working as a stenographer with the Department of Resources and Energy when she was retired on 15 August 1985 on invalidity grounds. Mrs Golledge had complained of soreness in both arms as a result of her typing duties on or about 9 August 1984
·     her condition was diagnosed as “repetitive strain injury” (RSI)
·     on 21 August 1984 her treating physician, Dr Quay, certified her as unfit for…

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.

Continue reading Golledge and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Golledge and Comcare [2004] AATA 807
Case: [2004] AATA 807
Decision Date: 3 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was brought by Mr Golledge against Comcare, challenging decisions pertaining to his workers' compensation entitlements. Mr Golledge had sustained injuries during his employment with the Commonwealth, leading to claims for ongoing impairment and associated benefits. The Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the determinations made by Comcare concerning Mr Golledge's entitlement to compensation for injuries that resulted in impairment of his upper limbs, spine, and chronic pain disorder. The crux of the matter involved whether Mr Golledge suffered a new or further impairment and the degree of permanent impairment attributable to his condition.

The legal issues central to this appeal encompassed the interpretation and application of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, specifically sections related to the assessment of permanent impairment and the awarding of compensation. A critical issue was whether Mr Golledge's conditions, including a chronic pain disorder and somatisation disorder, constituted a further or new impairment. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether Mr Golledge's impairment warranted a reassessment of his compensation entitlements and the applicability of the Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment. Another significant issue was whether the Tribunal could take into account Mr Golledge's psychological conditions, such as factitious disorder, in assessing his impairment.

The Tribunal examined the legislative framework and the relevant sections of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. It considered the definitions and criteria for determining permanent impairment and the relevance of the Guide to the Assessment. The Tribunal also reviewed the case law, including the principles established in Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission and Comcare v Moon, among others. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Mr Golledge's conditions did not constitute a new or further impairment, and his psychological disorders did not impact the assessment of his physical impairment. The Tribunal upheld the decisions of Comcare, affirming the compensation entitlements awarded. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Golledge's chronic pain disorder and somatisation disorder did not alter the assessment of his physical impairment, and therefore, his compensation entitlements remained unchanged.

The final orders of the Tribunal affirmed the decisions of Comcare, rejecting Mr Golledge's appeal. Mr Golledge's claims for a reassessment of his impairment and increased compensation were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that there was no new or further impairment, and the psychological conditions did not affect the assessment of his physical impairment. Consequently, the compensation entitlements remained as initially determined by Comcare.

Orders