Hanger and Australian Postal Corporation - [2003] AATA 1328

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 1328
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) No N2002/220
) N2002/692

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re NATASHA HANGER

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member

Date22 December 2003
PlaceNewcastle and Sydney

Decision Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal:
(i)In relation to matter number N2002/220, sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor determines that the Respondent is liable to pay compensation for lower back pain, which is diagnosed as coccydynia, for leave for 30 October 2000 to 6 November 2000 and 14 November 2000 and physiotherapy from 24 November 2000.
(ii)In relation to matter N2002/692, sets aside the decision under review, and in substitution therefor decides that the Respondent is liable to pay compensation for Mrs Hanger’s lower back pain, which has been diagnosed as coccydynia, from 28 December 2000 pursuant to sections 14, 16 and 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
(iii)The matter is remitted to the Respondent to determine Mrs Hanger’s entitlements as a result of this decision.
(iii) The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s reasonable legal costs in relation to the lower back condition as agreed or taxed in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction dated 18 May 1998.
..............................................
Ms S M Bullock Senior Member

3. A hearing was held in Newcastle before the Tribunal on 21 February 2003 and a resumed hearing was held in Sydney on 2 June 2003. Mrs Hanger provided oral evidence to the Tribunal. Oral evidence was also provided by Dr K Ostinga, Orthopaedic Surgeon, and Dr N W McGill, Consultant Rheumatologist. Mrs Hanger was represented by Mr B Bachelor of Counsel and the Australian Postal Corporation was represented by Miss R M Henderson of Counsel. The Tribunal took into evidence documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("T Documents": T1-T23, N2002/220, Bundle 1; T1-T98, N2002/692). The Tribunal also took into evidence the following exhibits:

EXHIBIT

DESCRIPTION

DATE

A1

Report of Dr C van Rooy, General Practitioner

18 March 2002

A2

Report of T Hamilton, Chiropractor

17 March 2002

A3

Report of Dr K Ostinga, Orthopaedic Surgeon

17 June 2002

A4

Letter from Mr S Churches, Armstrongs Solicitors to Dr K Ostinga

8 July 2002

A5

Report of Dr K Ostinga, Orthopaedic Surgeon

8 August 2002

A6

Letter from S Churches, Armstrongs Solicitors to Dr K Ostinga

8 November 2002

A7

Report of Dr K Ostinga, Orthopaedic Surgeon

13 November 2002

A8

Report of Dr AJR Macpherson, General Practitioner

11 June 2002

A9

Schedule of Incapacity

Undated

A10

List of Medical and Related Treatment

Undated

R1

Report of Dr NW McGill, Consultant Rheumatologist

3 June 2002

R2

Medical Records from John Hunter Hospital

Various

ISSUES
4.The issues in this matter are:

· Whether Mrs Hanger is entitled to compensation for incapacity in relation to the period 30 October 2000 to 6 November 2000 and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hanger and Australian Postal Corporation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] AATA 1328
Decision Date: 22 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Hanger, sought review of a decision by the Australian Postal Corporation that denied his claim for compensation for a work-related low back injury. The matter was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was required to determine whether the Corporation's decision was legally sound. The primary issue was whether the injury, which included coccydynia, was caused by the work-related incident and whether the Corporation had ongoing liability for the applicant's medical expenses and incapacity. The Tribunal needed to assess the evidence presented regarding the nature of the injury, the causation, and the extent of incapacity and medical costs.

The Tribunal considered the medical evidence provided, including reports from the treating physicians and the expert opinions. It examined whether the injury was indeed caused by the work incident, and if so, whether the Corporation's refusal to accept continuing liability was justified. The Tribunal also assessed the applicant's incapacity and the necessity of the medical expenses claimed. It evaluated the Corporation's decision-making process and the applicable legislative provisions.

The Tribunal concluded that the evidence supported the causation of the injury and the need for ongoing treatment. It found that the Corporation's refusal to accept continuing liability was not supported by the evidence. The Tribunal determined that the Corporation was liable for the applicant's medical expenses and incapacity. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the Corporation's decision and remitted the matter back to it for reassessment in light of the Tribunal's findings.

The Tribunal ordered that the Australian Postal Corporation reassess the claim for compensation, taking into account the findings that the injury was work-related, the ongoing liability for medical expenses and incapacity was established, and the refusal to accept this liability was unjustified. The Corporation was directed to provide a detailed written response to the Tribunal within a specified timeframe.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal:

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.

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION	DATE
A1	Report of Dr C van Rooy, General Practitioner	18 March 2002
A2	Report of T Hamilton, Chiropractor	17 March 2002
A3	Report of Dr K Ostinga, Orthopaedic Surgeon	17 June 2002
A4	Letter from Mr S Churches, Armstrongs Solicitors to Dr K Ostinga	8 July 2002
A5	Report of Dr K Ostinga, Orthopaedic Surgeon	8 August 2002
A6	Letter from S Churches, Armstrongs Solicitors to Dr K Ostinga	8 November 2002
A7	Report of Dr K Ostinga, Orthopaedic Surgeon	13 November 2002
A8	Report of Dr AJR Macpherson, General Practitioner	11 June 2002
A9	Schedule of Incapacity	Undated
A10	List of Medical and Related Treatment	Undated
R1	Report of Dr NW McGill, Consultant Rheumatologist	3 June 2002
R2	Medical Records from John Hunter Hospital	Various