GOODRICKE and COMCARE

Case [2010] AATA 410


Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 410

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2009/1256

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re   PETER GOODRICKE

Applicant

And

  COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member

Date1 June 2010

PlaceCanberra  

Decision The decision under review is set aside and remitted to Comcare.  

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

Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member          

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – Whether Applicant entitled to incapacity payments under s 19 – if so, whether Applicant currently incapacitated for work as a result of his accepted condition – if so, the extent to which he is incapacitated – if Applicant is entitled to compensation under s 19, the amount per week Comcare is liable to pay him under s 19(3) – whether ‘adjustment percentage’ under s 19(3) – the amount per week Applicant is able to earn in ‘suitable employment’, having regard to the labour market at the relevant time under s 19(4) – whether Applicant failed to seek suitable employment under s 19(4)(e) – if s 19(4)(e) applies, whether Applicant’s failure to seek employment was reasonable in all the circumstances under s 19(4)(f) – decision under review set aside and remitted

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

Re Arbuckle and Comcare (2005) 89 ALD 84.

Arnotts Snack Products Pty Ltd v Yacob (1985) 155 CLR 171

Re Chamberlain and Comcare [1997] AATA 17

Martin v Australian Postal Corporation (2000) 32 AAR 199

Re Peers and Commonwealth (1987) 14 ALD 209

Pelgrave v Comcare Australia (2002) 36 AAR 1
Re Prica and Comcare (1996) 44 ALD 46
Re Sabioni and Comcare (1999) 61 ALD 305

Slater v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2001] FCA 1417
Re Smith and Comcare [2002] AATA 249
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Slater [2001] FCA 149

1 June 2010  REASONS FOR DECISION

Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member

1.      Mr Goodricke was employed by Health Services Australia as a senior systems engineer from 13 October 1999 under a fixed term contract.  The contract was for three years, but permitted early retirement, for example, on a redundancy.  Mr Goodricke retired from Health Services Australia by an involuntary redundancy on 22 February 2000.   

2.      On 3 March 2000, Mr Goodricke sought compensation for repetitive strain injury in both arms.  That claim was ultimately successful and he has an accepted claim now diagnosed as aggravated regional pain syndrome (bilateral)[1] with a date of injury of 14 February 2000.

[1] As from 7 May 2008.  

3. A claim for permanent impairment was accepted by a consent order from the Tribunal on 6 August 2004, and Mr Goodricke was entitled to incapacity benefits from 13 February 2002 to 16 February 2004. He was awarded a lump sum payment of $24,866.38 under section 24 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act) and $14,478.13 under section 27 of the Act.

4.      On 6 August 2004, the Tribunal made an order by consent that Mr Goodricke’s normal weekly earnings were $1150.16; that he had an ability to earn…

Continue reading GOODRICKE and COMCARE

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
GOODRICKE and COMCARE [2010] AATA 410
Case
[2010] AATA 410
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Goodricke, sought compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) from Comcare, following an injury sustained during his employment. The dispute centred on whether Goodricke was entitled to incapacity payments under section 19 of the Act, and if so, the amount of such payments. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues were whether Goodricke was currently incapacitated for work due to his accepted condition, the extent of his incapacity, and the amount of compensation payable under section 19(3) of the Act. The court also needed to determine if there was an applicable 'adjustment percentage' under section 19(4), and if Goodricke had failed to seek suitable employment, and if such failure was reasonable. The court examined these issues in light of relevant case law and statutory provisions.

The Federal Court reviewed the decision made by Comcare and found that it did not adequately address the factors necessary to determine Goodricke's entitlement to compensation. The court held that the decision under review was flawed and set it aside, remitting the matter back to Comcare for further consideration in line with the court's findings.

The final orders of the court were to set aside the decision under review and remit the matter to Comcare for reassessment in accordance with the court's judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is set aside and remitted to Comcare.

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.