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 305Slater v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2001] FCA 1417
Re Smith and Comcare [2002] AATA 249
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Slater [2001] FCA 1491 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
- AGLC
- GOODRICKE and COMCARE [2010] AATA 410
- Case
- [2010] AATA 410
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.