Griffiths and Comcare - [2003] AATA 614

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 614
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2002/1635

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re LESLIE ARTHUR GRIFFITHS

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member
DR P D Lynch, Member
Date30 June 2003
PlaceSydney

Decision
Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor, the Tribunal decides that:

(i) Mr Griffiths is entitled to compensation pursuant to section 24 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 with an impairment of 25 per cent from Table 5.1 of the “Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment”.

(ii) Mr Griffiths is entitled to compensation pursuant to section 27 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

(iii) The Respondent is liable to pay the Applicant's reasonable legal costs as agreed and in accordance with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Practice Direction.

..............................................
Ms SM Bullock Presiding Member

DECISION (CORRIGENDUM)
Before :     Ms S M Bullock – Senior Member
                  Dr PD Lynch – Member
Date:        28 July 2003
Place:      Sydney

The Tribunal made a decision in this matter dated 30 June 2003 pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“the Act”).
It has come to the Tribunal’s attention that there is an obvious error in the text of the decision and reasons for the decision and accordingly, the Tribunal desires to amend the decision pursuant to section 43AA of the Act and provides as follows:
A. Page 1 and 2
Decision:“Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor, the Tribunal decides that:
(i) Mr Griffiths is entitled to compensation pursuant to section 24 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 with an impairment of 20 per cent from Table 5.1 of the “Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment”.
(ii) Mr Griffiths is entitled to compensation pursuant to section 27 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
(iii) The Respondent is liable to pay the Applicant’s reasonable legal costs as agreed and in accordance with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Practice Direction.

B. Paragraph 87 and 88, page 42
“87. Accordingly, the Tribunal agrees with the assessment provided by Dr Reinhardt but confirmed by all of the evidence, particularly that provided by Mr Griffiths. The Tribunal has already found, based on Dr Reinhardt’s opinion, that Mr Griffiths had a 5 per cent impairment prior to 1 December 1988 and this must be taken into account in assessing Mr Griffiths’ degree of impairment from 1 December 1988. Dr Strauss’ opinion, while professionally provided, does not reflect the severity of the condition as evidenced by all of the material available to the Tribunal.
88. Accordingly, for all of the reasons set out above, pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act

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 Griffiths and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Griffiths and Comcare [2003] AATA 614
Case: [2003] AATA 614
Decision Date: 30 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Mr Griffiths pursued a claim against Comcare, a government agency, for compensation related to permanent impairment resulting from a work-related injury. The dispute centred around whether an increase in the severity of a permanent impairment constituted a different impairment for the purposes of lump sum compensation, and whether transitional provisions applied to his claim. The Tribunal was required to determine the appropriate level of compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, considering both the quantitative and qualitative changes in Mr Griffiths' condition.

The central legal issues the Tribunal addressed were whether the increase in Mr Griffiths' permanent impairment constituted a different impairment, and thus a separate compensable event, and whether transitional provisions applied to his claim. Additionally, the Tribunal needed to decide on the appropriate degree of impairment for the purpose of calculating compensation. The Tribunal examined the relevant statutory provisions, the legislative history, and the guidelines provided by the "Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment."

In resolving the matter, the Tribunal considered the legislative intent and the practical implications of treating an increase in impairment as a separate event. It concluded that the increase in Mr Griffiths' impairment did not constitute a different impairment for compensation purposes, and that transitional provisions did not apply. The Tribunal determined that Mr Griffiths was entitled to compensation for a 25% impairment under section 24 of the Act and for other compensation under section 27. The Tribunal also ordered Comcare to pay Mr Griffiths' reasonable legal costs.

The Tribunal's decision established that an increase in the severity of a permanent impairment, without a qualitative change, does not result in a separate compensable event. This ruling provides clarity for future claims and ensures that workers are appropriately compensated for their injuries without the need for additional litigation over the nature of the impairment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor, the Tribunal decides that:

(i) Mr Griffiths is entitled to compensation pursuant to section 24 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 with an impairment of 25 per cent from Table 5.1 of the “Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment”.

(ii) Mr Griffiths is entitled to compensation pursuant to section 27 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

(iii) The Respondent is liable to pay the Applicant's reasonable legal costs as agreed and in accordance with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Practice Direction.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		LESLIE ARTHUR GRIFFITHS