Grundy and Comcare

[2006] AATA 1019

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 1019

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No   A2006/195 & 197

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		MAURENE GRUNDY

Applicant

And   COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal J.W. Constance, Senior Member

Date23 November 2006

PlaceCanberra

Decision The decision of Comcare made August 2006 is set aside and in substitution it is decided that the time by which Ms Grundy can seek a reconsideration of the determination of Comcare dated 14th October 2004 issued in relation to her claims for compensation (reference 31771/02 & 01) is extended to and including 7 December 2006.

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

J.W. Constance, Senior Member  

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – Application for extension of time – Whether acceptable explanation for delay – Reliance on advocate – Prejudice.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) s 62

Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344

Duong v Australian Postal Corporation [2005] FCA 991

Comcare v A’Hearn (1993) 45 FCR 441

Maric v Comcare (1993) 40 FCR 244

REASONS FOR DECISION

23 November 2006 J.W. Constance, Senior Member

INTRODUCTION

1.      This is an application by Ms Grundy for review of a decision by Comcare to refuse her request for an extension of time in which to seek a reconsideration of a determination made in October 2004. The determination was that at that time she was no longer entitled to payments of compensation for injuries she had suffered as an employee of the Commonwealth.

2.      For reasons which follow, I have decided that the decision of Comcare should be set aside and that Ms Grundy be granted the extension of time which she seeks.

FACTS

3.      Unless otherwise stated, I make the following findings of fact based on the evidence of Ms Grundy.  I am satisfied of these facts on the balance of probabilities.

4.      In 1986 the Commissioner for Employees Compensation determined that Ms Grundy was entitled to compensation for a repetitive strain injury suffered in February 1985.  In 1995 Comcare accepted liability for an aggravation of her condition of fibromyalgia and secondary reactive depression. She received compensation for loss of income and medical expenses in respect of both injuries.

5.      In 2004 Comcare arranged for Dr Brown, a psychiatrist, and Dr Youssef, a rheumatologist, to examine Ms Grundy for the purpose of assessing her ongoing entitlement to compensation payments.  Both these medical practitioners provided comprehensive reports to Comcare.[1]  Having received these reports, together with a report from Dr Veness, Ms Grundy's treating psychiatrist, Comcare wrote to Ms Grundy on 4 July 2004 advising her that it appeared that at the time she was not entitled to continue to receive compensation benefits for incapacity and medical expenses.  Comcare gave Ms Grundy the opportunity to present further evidence by 18 August 2004 before making a final decision.

[1] Section 37 documents T68 and T69.

6.      Having received the letter from Comcare, Ms Grundy engaged a Mr Fenwick to assist her in her compensation matters.  Ms Grundy had previously sought assistance from Mr…