Hayden and Australian Postal Corporation
[2008] AATA 344
•30 April 2008
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 344
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N 2006/481
| GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION | ) | ||
| Re | JANET HAYDEN | ||
Applicant
| And | AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION Respondent |
DECISION
| Tribunal | Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member Dr J Campbell, Member |
Date30 April 2008
Place Sydney
| Decision | The Administrative Appeals Tribunal decides that: 1. The reviewable decision dated 23 March 2006 is set aside. 2. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant suffered a right shoulder injury in the course of her employment with the Respondent, which entitles her to compensation pursuant to sections 14, 16 and 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. 3. The matter is remitted to the Respondent to determine the Applicant’s entitlement pursuant to sections 16 and 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. |
…………[sgd]………….
Ms N Isenberg
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
WORKERS COMPENSATION – employee suffered an injury in the course of employment – entitlement to compensation – applicant’s underlying condition in right shoulder irrelevant consideration – right shoulder condition caused incapacity to work – work using arm at or above shoulder height likely to accelerate right shoulder’s degenerative process – decision of respondent set aside and remitted to respondent
LEGISLATION
Safety, Rehabilitation And Compensation Act 1988 – sections 14, 16 and 19
CASELAW
Broadbent v Australian Telecommunications [1991] AATA 176
Australian Postal Corporation v Bessey (2001) 32 AAR 508; [2001] FCA 266
Australian Postal Corporation v Nadge [1994] FCA 1163
Comcare Australia v Amorebieta (1996) 22 AAR 539; [1996] FCA 1438
REASONS FOR DECISION
| 30 April 2008 | Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member Dr J Campbell, Member |
INTRODUCTION
Ms Hayden was an employee of the Australian Postal Corporation (“Australia Post”) from May 1990 to 7 June 2007. She injured her left shoulder at work in 1993 and liability was accepted for that condition. She contended that her right shoulder was injured as a result of favouring her left shoulder. Alternatively, it was submitted on her behalf, that her work materially contributed to her right shoulder condition in any event. She contended she was unable to work between 11 October 2005 and 5 February 2006 because of either her left or right shoulder condition or both.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF APPLICATION
By determination dated 19 December 2005, Australia Post accepted ongoing liability in respect of the Ms Hayden’s left shoulder condition but denied liability in respect of her right shoulder as a condition secondary to her compensable left shoulder condition. Australia Post further denied liability for incapacity payments from October 2005 onwards on the basis that it was Ms Hayden’s right shoulder condition, and not her left shoulder, that prevented her from working restricted hours and duties.
The decision under review is that of 23 March 2006 which affirmed the above determination that Australia Post was not liable pursuant to section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”) for a right shoulder condition as a secondary injury to Ms Hayden’s accepted left shoulder condition, and was therefore not liable under section 19 of the Act to pay compensation for total incapacity for the period 11 October 2005 to 5 February 2006.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The Tribunal must determine the following issues:
·Did Ms Hayden suffer an injury to her right shoulder in the course of her employment with Australia Post?
·If so, is Ms Hayden entitled to compensation in respect of her right shoulder injury?
·If not, is Ms Hayden entitled to compensation for the period 11 October 2005 to 5 February 2006 in respect of her left shoulder injury?
CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS
Ms Hayden’s duties 1994-1999
The evidence was that, after the surgery on her left shoulder in February 1994, Ms Hayden returned to work in August 1994 for 4 hours per day on selected duties. A return to work plan dated 30 September 1994 was formulated, under which she was to undertake tasks including small letter sorting for 30 minutes at a time, and non standard letters for 30 minutes at a time. She specifically was to avoid sorting for prolonged periods and there was to be no work above chest height. Her hours increased to 6 per day. A further return to work program was prepared on 11 January 1995 with the same duties and restrictions. At that time though, she was already complaining of discomfort with prolonged activities at shoulder height, including the sorting of small letters. On 16 February 1995 it was reported in the rehabilitation progress report that some changes to the vertical sorting division (‘VSD’), or ‘54-way break’ as it is colloquially called, were organised by Ms Hayden in consultation with Australia Post, to remove the need for her to sort to the highest rows. There was no information however as to what that may have entailed, nor was there any evidence that there were in fact any modifications. No comments were made by the Applicant when the photographs of a VSD, said to be the one at which she actually worked, were provided to her.
A return to work program of 14 March 1995 was in the same terms as before, but there was no time limit on sorting activities, other than that, again, ‘prolonged’ sorting was to be avoided. She was to work a full day. Later in March 1995 the occupational physician managing Ms Hayden had received correspondence from Dr Goldberg, that Ms Hayden was to avoid all repetitive activities, including mail sorting. A possible change of duties was to be discussed with Australia Post and a move to a retail store was being considered. The return to work program of 29 June 1995 was in the same terms as that of the previous one. Dr Goldberg recommended that the restrictions be permanent and a case closure report from Illawarra Occupational Health dated 24 August 1995 noted that permanent restrictions are to include no above shoulder activity and no use of the VSD.
In April 1997 she was reviewed at Australia Post’s request by Dr Hassall. He took a history that her duties at that time involved sorting ordinary letters at a VSD. The first half of her shift involved reaching upwards to a greater extent than the second half of her shift. The following workplace assessment advised that she should adjust her chair for VSD letter sorting. In November 1999 a workplace assessment recorded her duties as including sitting and standing at the VSD to sort small letters. She was to stand to avoid excessive reaching and to move across the sorting frame (sic).
On 14 November 1999 Ms Hayden completed an incident report in which she referred to only her left shoulder. At the time, though, her right shoulder was also quite painful with a burning sensation. She said that she had called her supervisor over to the VSD where she was sitting sorting and told him about the pain in both shoulders. She said she asked her supervisor what to do about her right shoulder and his advice was that it was not compensable so concentrate just on the left shoulder in completing the incident report. It was not until 2006 that she completed a claim form.
We were somewhat disadvantaged by not having a more detailed evidence from Ms Hayden of precisely the work she was doing during this period, between the time of her return to work after the left shoulder surgery, and when her right shoulder became symptomatic. Ms Hayden agreed in her evidence that she had accurately described her duties to Dr McGill. She told him that there was no near, at or above shoulder height work with the left hand, but that she used her dominant right arm. She sorted small letters, for about 50 percent of the time standing and 50 percent of the time sitting, into a 52 (sic) hole rack (pigeon holes). When sorting local letters, the pigeon holes were immediately in front of her and were easy to reach. When sorting interstate letters, she needed to reach further, and she thought that some of that reaching involved elevating her right hand to shoulder height. She also sorted large letters, while standing, into white tubs.
Ms Hayden gave a history to Professor Sambrook that there was some component (about 5%) of her work that involved above shoulder work.
She told us that she would have the letters on the table in front of the VSD and sort with her right hand, not using the left at all, whereas usually the mail sorter would hold the letters in the left and discard them into the pigeon holes of the VSD with the right.
Ms Whitby, who was a work colleague of Ms Hayden’s, gave evidence that in 1999 she recalled Ms Hayden sitting doing small letter sorting. Ms Whitby completed in 2006, at the request of the Applicant, a witness statement to the effect that she had seen Ms Hayden at the small letter bench ‘in some discomfort’, not being able to move her arms because of pain in the shoulders. She identified the event as occurring after October in 1999, because that was when she moved house. This was consistent with Ms Hayden’s complaints to her GP in November 1999 about her right shoulder.
Was there a connection between the right shoulder and Ms Hayden’s duties?
We heard and read evidence from Professor Sambrook (professor of rheumatology), Dr Goldberg (orthopaedic surgeon), Dr Endrey-Walder (Workers Compensation Commission approved medical specialist for assessment of permanent impairment) and Dr McGill (consultant rheumatologist), Dr Maxwell (orthopaedic and spinal surgeon), Dr Pierides (occupational physician) and Dr Honner (orthopaedic surgeon, specialist in the hand and upper limb) on the question of the cause of the Applicant’s condition. We also read evidence from Dr Hodgkinson (orthopaedic surgeon), Dr Mackay (GP) and Dr Hassall (rheumatologist). The medical evidence was divergent and, in some respects, irreconcilable. All went to the customary underlying causes of the conditions and to the probable underlying causes in respect of Ms Hayden.
The Respondent’s position was that essentially there was little connection, if any, between the Applicant’s work at Australia Post and her right shoulder condition, that condition being constitutional in origin.
In support of this view we had the report of Dr Maxwell, dated 1 November 2002, in relation to Ms Hayden’s left shoulder. At that time he noted that her right shoulder was also aching. In his report of 12 January 2007 Dr Maxwell considered that Ms Hayden was suffering from constitutional degeneration of the supraspinatus tendon and that there was no evidence that it was related to her work, in the absence of a sudden onset of pain, and the radiological evidence not showing a significant full thickness tear. He repeated this finding in his evidence.
The Respondent‘s position was also supported by Dr Honner, who, in his report of 4 April 2007, considered Ms Hayden to have a constitutionally caused pre-disposition to degenerative changes in the gleno-humeral and acromio-clavicular joint at the right shoulder, and had had slow degeneration irrespective of employment. He further noted that the “bony shape of the acromion identified on X-rays of the right shoulder is a long standing anatomical defect that has contributed to the progression of the degenerative changes.”
The Applicant’s case, in our view, broadly raised 4 ways in which Ms Hayden’s right shoulder condition could have been materially contributed to by her work:
Slow deterioration exacerbated by heavy lifting
On 28 January 2000, Dr Hodgkinson completed a medical report at the request of Australia Post. He opined that irritability and discomfort Ms Hayden was experiencing in the right shoulder was likely to be the result of previous heavy lifting strains over a number of years. He described her at that time as showing signs of early wear and tear.
To some extent this is consistent with Ms Hayden’s evidence that she had ‘always’ had right shoulder problems since she experienced the injury to her left shoulder in 1993. She gave evidence that both shoulders ‘went’ in August or November 1999. On that occasion she put ice packs on them. Between 1994 and 1999 Ms Whitby had seen Ms Hayden go to the sick bay 9 or 10 times to rest and to put ice or heat packs on her shoulder. Ms Whitby thought it was Ms Hayden’s right shoulder that caused her to go to the sick bay, although she knew both were troublesome.
Ms Hayden said that ever since that time the pain has been intermittent, like a ‘headache in the shoulder’, worsening to a ‘migraine [in the shoulder]’.
- Overcompensation for left shoulder injury
Ms Hayden said that, after injuring her left shoulder, she was afraid to use her left arm. As a result, the right shoulder gradually got worse. For reasons which are unclear, she said she does not have pain in her right shoulder when she does not have pain in her left shoulder, that is, when her left shoulder flares up, she also has increased pain in her right shoulder.
Ms Whitby had observed Ms Hayden sorting more slowly than usual, which she presumed was because of pain. She observed Ms Hayden not to use the left arm as much as the right, and using only the right for sorting.
Dr MacKay provided a report dated 2 July 2004. At that time Ms Hayden had a flare-up of the left shoulder and she also complained of a sore right shoulder. He considered her painful right shoulder/neck to be compensatory because she was unable to use her left shoulder/arm.
In his report of 30 October 2006, Dr Goldberg considered that Ms Hayden had developed impingement of her right shoulder as a result of having to use her right shoulder to compensate for the left. In his evidence he noted that she had continued to sort over the years since the surgery, although predominantly using her right arm and that her right shoulder was probably ‘doing the work for two shoulders’.
Although in his report of 7 August 2006 Dr Endry-Walder did not specifically comment on causation, he stated that “she would tend to spare her left arm, relying more heavily on the dominant upper limb in the years to come.” In his evidence he said he would expect that as a consequence of the debility of the left shoulder she would have had overuse of the right upper limb over and beyond her right-sided dominance in trying to satisfy her work related and other daily activities. By the time she complained of right shoulder pain in 1999, she would have had difficulties of the left shoulder for about six years. He thought that once she had had the injury to the left shoulder, at some stage in her life she would have trouble with the right shoulder even if she didn’t go to work. Her work though had caused it to come on 10 years earlier.
Professor Sambrook, in his report dated 4 June 2007, shared Dr Goldberg’s view that the impingement of Ms Hayden’s right shoulder was a result of having to use her right shoulder to compensate for the left. In his evidence he said that mechanical overuse of the shoulder could accelerate the process of the underlying degeneration.
Dr McGill, however, in his report of 30 August 2006, considered that Ms Hayden’s right shoulder symptoms could not be attributed to overuse. His view was that degenerative changes in rotator cuffs are very commonly found and can occur in the absence of injury or aggravating physical activity. In his evidence he said that if someone did a lot of heavy lifting and at and above shoulder height work and pushed on with all of those duties with their asymptomatic shoulder protecting the other shoulder, then there was a reasonable argument [of connection]. Much turns on how much work someone does with a shoulder that has asymptomatic degeneration. Once someone is experiencing symptoms, then he or she should ensure that all activities are well below shoulder height and do not involve heavy lifting.
Dr Maxwell in his evidence conceded, in hindsight, that Ms Hayden may have had an underlying susceptibility to a right shoulder condition.
- Repetitive use of the right arm at/above shoulder height
In 1999, when Ms Hayden first experienced serious right shoulder pain she was a small letter sorter, sitting using the VSD. At that time she was working full hours.
Dr Endrey-Walder, in his evidence noted that after the operation of February 1994, Ms Hayden was certified unfit for certain types of physical activity and that she told him that these restrictions included no pushing, pulling, lifting, reaching. He said that he would therefore expect her to have been considered at that time as unfit for work as a mail sorter. He considered that sorting duties played a role in the development of the degenerative changes that would be responsible for her symptoms.
Dr McGill, in his report dated 30 August 2006, agreed that repetitive above shoulder height activity can aggravate rotator cuff disease, but he did not understand Ms Hayden to be doing that work at the time of the onset of the condition. Significantly, he could not exclude the possibility that the sorting duties performed played a role, albeit small in his view, in the development of the changes. He further mentioned that “from the history she provided and careful review of the documentation” Ms Hayden was not performing a considerable amount of at and above shoulder height activity.
In his evidence, Dr McGill said he thought it unlikely that the degree of at and above shoulder height work that she had performed with her right arm was sufficient to influence her rotator cuff. He thought the overall pattern of her symptoms suggested that the cause was constitutional degenerative change. He could not exclude her sorting duties might have influenced her condition.
Dr McGill told us that if Ms Hayden was lifting her right hand to shoulder height only occasionally that was unlikely to have influenced her rotator cuff but if it was something she was doing frequently then it could have.
Dr McGill’s understanding was that desk sorting did not require above shoulder height work, but agreed that if the top level of the frame was at eye level that there would be some activity at shoulder level or above, depending on how far away the module is from where Ms Hayden was sitting.
Referring to Ms Hayden’s work on the VSD, Professor Sambrook concluded in his report dated 4 June 2007 that “it is more probable than not that she has developed problems with her right shoulder as a result of having to use her right shoulder excessively”. In his evidence Professor Sambrook said that rotator cuff pathology and tears, in particular, have been linked to certain work activities, especially work above shoulder level, and there was a cumulative effect. Professor Sambrook had also seen several videos from Australia Post about mail sorting and also in particular what was involved in sorting into a VSD and that that included above shoulder work. He thought repetitive work at or above shoulder level was especially likely to aggravate already damaged shoulders and this would accelerate the degenerative process. Whenever there was a component of shoulder movement, there would be some degree of mechanical overuse. Once there is rotator cuff disease in both shoulders the patient should avoid activities that involve repetitive use of the shoulders at any height as much as possible.
Dr Pierides, provided a report dated 2 December 2005 in which he considered that Ms Hayden’s right shoulder condition was not work related, and was most likely related to underlying degenerative change. He considered though that there was a possibility of a small component of work related worsening of a pre-existing degenerative condition in her right shoulder.
Dr Honner agreed in cross-examination that even without lifting any weight above shoulder height she would be more likely to develop symptoms. In the absence of degenerative or artery change in the shoulder, he would not expect discomfort or damage to the shoulder caused by raising the arm above the shoulder. However, when there are degenerative changes in the shoulder, symptoms are more likely to develop if carrying out activities at or above shoulder height.
Dr Maxwell considered that Ms Hayden did not have a significant loss of shoulder function when he saw her in 2004. He did not think her work had contributed to her condition, irrespective of whether she undertook at or above shoulder height mail sorting from time to time from 1994 through to 1999. He considered Ms Hayden to have some underlying degeneration and did not consider that the nature and conditions of her work led to her condition. Dr Maxwell agreed though that supraspinatus tendonitis can be an over-use syndrome as a result of doing repetitive heavy lifting above shoulder height. He noted it to be a very common condition, quite commonly experienced without significant symptoms.
- Repetitive use of the right arm irrespective of the height
In his report of 30 October 2006, Dr Goldberg also considered that Ms Hayden’s right shoulder problems were a result of the “repetitive nature of her work practices”, which in his evidence he said involved sorting predominantly using her right arm. He said this would cause inflammation, irrespective of whether the work was at shoulder height. He told us that if there was degeneration in both shoulders he did not think Ms Hayden would have had this significant problem were it not for repetitive work. At the very least she has aggravated a pre-existing condition by her repetitive work. He considered the repetitive movements may have caused the little tear on the right.
Dr McGill agreed that if someone has an irritable shoulder, then it is possible to feel more pain when they move the shoulder, even if moving it below shoulder height. Activities done below shoulder height, however, have no potential to damage the rotator cuff, irritate the rotator cuff, or cause a progression of degenerative change in the rotator cuff. In terms of activities with the potential to cause some change in the underlying pathology, even a temporary change, then it needs to be activities where the elbow comes close to or is above shoulder height. The relevant angle is the relationship between the trunk and the arm. Dr McGill said that it depends on how far away the sorting frame is from her body. If the frame is relatively close to the body sorting can occur without the elbow getting up near or to shoulder height.
Dr McGill thought that it was not possible to exclude there having been some aggravation of the degenerative changes in Ms Hayden’s rotator cuff by sorting. However, because of the timing of when her symptoms became most troublesome and the frequency with which degenerative changes in the rotator cuff are seen in the general population, he thought it was unlikely that the sorting duties that she performed with her right hand had influenced her right rotator cuff. He had come to that view based on the history taken from the Applicant that she sorted small letters - 50 per cent of the time standing, and 50 per cent of the time sitting. He thought the pigeon holes for local letters were located immediately in front of her and were easy to reach. When sorting interstate letters she needed to reach further to sort and some of that reaching involved elevating her right hand to shoulder height.
Dr Honner agreed in cross-examination that if Ms Hayden had predominantly used her right shoulder for sorting during 1994 to 1999 it is possible that activity increased the symptoms of her osteoarthrosis of the right shoulder, although he regarded this as only temporary. He thought Ms Hayden‘s symptoms in 1999 were the steady progression of her underlying arthritic changes in the shoulder. He did not think her repetitive duties to have contributed to the onset of the symptoms in 1999 because the natural history of the condition is to become symptomatic at some stage and in his opinion that would have occurred in her particular case in the right shoulder, whether she was working at Australia Post or not. He thought it a coincidence that it happened at that particular time. He conceded that the fact that she was symptomatic from 1999 and that she was continuing to perform right-shoulder repetition may have temporarily aggravated the symptoms, and that this increase in symptoms could continue if she continued to sort mail. In those circumstances, with regard to her right shoulder alone, between October 2005 and February 2006, she would have been unable to undertake her pre‑injury duties as a mail officer, ignoring her left shoulder.
Dr Pierides, in his evidence, acknowledged that mail sorting requires repetitive motion, but because there was no specific incident, he did not believe the nature of her work would necessarily have significantly contributed to any advancement of right shoulder degeneration. He pointed out that not all mail sorters have shoulder problems so Ms Hayden must have had a constitutional predisposition. As he understood Ms Hayden’s history, she was only temporarily symptomatic in 1999, but noted that it was an episode of severe pain causing significant discomfort. Although it settled quite quickly with physiotherapy, she later had sporadic symptoms in her shoulder which again responded to physiotherapy. She had “no symptoms” in her right shoulder when he first assessed her in August 2005, but he agreed her symptoms fluctuated. If she was symptomatic, she should not be using her right arm for repetitive actions sorting or lifting her arm above chest height. He doubted that she would have suffered from 1999 working with a sore right arm without complaint. He acknowledged that he had proceeded on the basis that her symptoms were only occasional and that they settled quickly. He did not understand her to have given him a history that she was complaining of persistent right shoulder symptoms from 1994 and her mail sorting work required elevation of her right arm above her chest height on a consistent basis or that her symptoms were fairly prominent on a regular basis. If that were the case it was possible that there was a significant work relationship.
Dr Pierides stated in his evidence that during the relevant period, between 28 November and 10 February 2006, Ms Hayden was unable to perform her duties because of her right arm.
FINDINGS
We accept that Ms Hayden had a constitutionally caused pre-disposition to degenerative changes in the right shoulder, and that she had slow degeneration of the shoulder. We agree with the Applicant’s submissions that this is an irrelevant consideration: Broadbent v Australian Telecommunications [1991] AATA 176, and Australian Postal Corporation v Bessey [2001] FCA 266, where Gyles J stated (at paragraph 6):
“It has been well settled by a series of decisions starting from Jordan CJ's judgment in Salisbury v Australian Iron & SteelLtd (1943) 44 SR (NSW) 157, including Darling Island Stevedoring & Lighterage Co Ltd v Hankinson [1967] HCA 10 ; (1967) 117 CLR 19; Asioty v Canberra Abattoir Pty Ltd [1989] HCA 40; (1989) 167 CLR 533 and Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission (1989) 86 ALR 399, that if an underlying condition is aggravated, in the sense of been made worse, then any incapacity which results is compensable. On the other hand, if the aggravation is temporary, so that after a time it ceases to have any effect and leaves the underlying condition no worse, then there is no relevant continuing injury causing incapacity.”
Although the evidence was somewhat lacking in detail, we accept that between the time of her return to work in 1994 and 1999 when she became symptomatic, Ms Hayden worked for several hours on each of her working days on the VSD, and that that work entailed some repetitive work at or above shoulder height.
We accept that Ms Hayden completed an incident report in 1999, naively believing that she was only able to report an existing condition and accepting advice from her supervisor that her right shoulder was non-compensable. We do so, noting the clear evidence of problems with her right shoulder in 1999: complaints to her GP; she underwent a course of physiotherapy; and she was assessed by CRS Australia on 22 November 1999 in respect of her right shoulder. She continued to suffer symptoms, intermittently, according to her GP’s notes, although there appear to have been no formal complaints in the workplace between the end of 2000 and mid 2004. We note however, that her right shoulder was aching when she first saw Dr Maxwell in November 2002. Her evidence was that the condition has been constant but varies in intensity. This is consistent with the medical evidence that rotator cuff symptoms wax and wane.
We also accept the evidence of Professor Sambrook, who was familiar with the VSD, that Ms Hayden’s work entailed some repetitive work at or above shoulder height and that this was likely to accelerate the degenerative process. We also note his view that whenever there was a component of shoulder movement, there would be some degree of mechanical overuse, irrespective of the height at which the work was undertaken. We note that both Dr McGill and Dr Honner, the Respondent’s doctors, were unable to exclude there having been some aggravation of the degenerative changes by Ms Hayden’s sorting duties between 1994 and 1999 and that it was possible that this increased the symptomatology of the right shoulder. We do not accept the Respondent’s submission that, based on the tendered photographs, the only repetitive work at or above shoulder level would have been in reaching the very top right corner. In this regard we note the evidence of Dr McGill that the relevant angle is the relationship between the trunk and the arm and the likely distance of the sorting frame from her body. In our view she would have been reaching at or above shoulder level with some repetitiveness, especially given that she worked at the VSD for several hours per day, and that in 1999 she was working full time.
We do not accept the view of Dr Maxwell that there was no connection with her work whatsoever, because he appears to have based his view on the absence of a frank injury and that radiological evidence showed no significant tear.
We also do not think it can clearly be said that the right shoulder condition is a sequela of the left shoulder condition, per Australian Postal Corporation v Nadge, [1994] FCA 1163 and Comcare Australia v Amorebieta [1996] FCA 1438 to which we were referred. This submission relied heavily on the evidence of Dr Goldberg. We could not be satisfied that Dr Goldberg, unlike Professor Sambrook, had a clear understanding of the precise nature of Ms Hayden’s duties between 1994 and 1999.
We therefore find that Ms Hayden suffered an injury to her right shoulder in the course of her employment with Australia Post and that as a result she was entitled to compensation and that the condition caused her to be incapacitated for work for the period 11 October 2005 to 5 February 2006.
DECISION
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision dated 23 March 2006, and finds that the Applicant suffered a right shoulder injury in the course of her employment with the Respondent, which entitles her to compensation pursuant to sections 14, 16 and 19 of the Act.
As the condition caused her to be incapacitated for work between 11 October 2005 and 5 February 2006, the matter is remitted to the Respondent to determine the Applicant’s entitlement pursuant to sections 16 and 19 of the Act.
I certify that the preceding 53 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms N ISENBERG, SENIOR MEMBER, and Dr J CAMPBELL, MEMBER
Signed: ............[sgd].............
Associate
Dates of Hearing 5-7, 19 March 2008
Date of Decision 30 April 2008
Counsel for the Applicant Mr D Richards
Solicitor for the Applicant Ms S Lepage, Slater & Gordon
Counsel for the Respondent Ms R HendersonSolicitor for the Respondent Mr J Drew, Sparke Helmore
0
4
0