Hasanagic and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a matter between Mr. Hasanagic and the Australian Postal Corporation concerning a denial of liability for compensation. Mr. Hasanagic claimed to be suffering from depression, anger, anxiety, and physical issues arising from his employment as a freight handler. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr. Hasanagic had made a valid claim for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act), specifically concerning the requirement to provide a medical certificate.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether it possessed jurisdiction to review Mr. Hasanagic's claim. This jurisdictional question hinged on whether Mr. Hasanagic's initial application for compensation satisfied the requirements of section 54 of the SRC Act, which mandates that a written claim must be accompanied by a medical certificate from a legally qualified medical practitioner. The Tribunal also had to consider whether any subsequent medical documentation provided by Mr. Hasanagic, or obtained by the Australian Postal Corporation, could retrospectively satisfy this requirement.

The Tribunal reasoned that compensation is not payable unless a valid written claim is made, which, subject to certain exceptions, must be accompanied by an approved medical certificate. It found that Mr. Hasanagic's initial claim, lodged on 23 May 2022, was not accompanied by a certificate that met the requirements of section 54(2)(b) of the SRC Act. While various medical reports were considered, including one from Dr. Tsiglopoulos, a report commissioned by the employer from Associate Professor Khalid, and certificates from Dr. Bradford, none were found to satisfy the statutory requirements. Specifically, Dr. Tsiglopoulos's certificate did not provide a history of a medical condition, Associate Professor Khalid's report was not obtained by the claimant, and Dr. Bradford's certificates, while providing a diagnosis, lacked sufficient detail regarding causation and the nature of the condition to assess its employment-relatedness.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Mr. Hasanagic's application because his written claim was not accompanied by the requisite medical certificate as stipulated by section 54(2)(b) of the SRC Act. The Tribunal encouraged Mr. Hasanagic to lodge a compliant medical certificate to enable consideration of his compensation claim.