Griffiths and Telstra Corporation Limited

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1363

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No   A2003/362

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		STEVEN GRIFFITHS

Applicant

And TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr J.W. Constance, Senior Member

Date15 December 2004

PlaceCanberra

Decision The respondent shall pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant up to and including the 23 July 2004, such costs to be agreed or taxed on a party/party basis.

..............................................

2.I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the effect of any such injury has now ceased and that Telstra Corporation Limited is no longer liable to pay compensation in respect of the claim on and from 7 May 2003.

3.In pursuance of the provisions of the Act, Telstra Corporation Limited is no longer liable to pay compensation in respect of any incapacity or medical expenses on and from 7 May 2003.”

7.      Mr Griffiths requested a reconsideration by letter of 29 May 2003.[1]  He included in his request the following:

“I am currently being prescribed medication & have been since approximately 1995 for which compensation had been payed (sic) as late as 17^th April 2003.  This medication helps maintain my capacity for full time employment & family & social activity.”

……..

“Dr England monitors my condition approximately every 6-8 weeks & the effects work places on my health and family & I would expect this to be compensateable (sic) until he advises that treatment is no longer required.”

[1] S.37 doc. T243.

8.      It is clear from this request that Mr Griffiths was seeking a review of the determination that the effect of the injury had ceased and the consequent determination that Telstra was no longer liable to pay compensation in respect of incapacity and medical expenses.  This was exactly the request one would expect he would have made.

9.      The determination was affirmed by a reviewable decision of 7 August 2003.

10.     The application for review of the decision was filed in the Tribunal on 11 September 2003.  It did not restrict the application to any particular part of the decision to be reviewed.  The reasons for the application were stated to be that the decision was incorrect in law and in fact.

11.     The Statement of Issues filed on behalf of Mr Griffiths on 29 October 2003 was as follows:

“1.Whether the applicant continues to suffered from ‘situational stress disorder and aggravation of tinnitus’ that was contributed to in a material degree by his employment with the (sic) Telstra, pursuant to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.”

12.     In the notes of a Preliminary Conference held on 31 October 2003 the following appears:

“What does A want from ongoing liability? Ongoing treatment and medication”.

“A” refers to Mr Griffiths.

13.     On 22 December 2003 Mr Griffiths solicitors filed a copy of a report of Dr Saboisky as to “an extended psychiatric assessment” of Mr Griffiths which took place on 4 December 2003.