Hedges and Australian Postal Corporation - [2006] AATA 1027

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 1027
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
)Nos
N2005/176
N2006/68

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re MICHAEL HEDGES

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Professor T Sourdin, Member
Dr M Thorpe, Member
Date30 November 2006
PlaceSydney

Decision
The determination of 29 November 2005 and the reviewable decision of 9 December 2005 in Matter No N2006/68 are set aside, and the following determination is substituted:

The Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the Applicant pursuant to section 24 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the SRC Act”) an amount of $14,135.12 in respect of a 10% whole person permanent impairment of the cervical spine resulting from the injury.

The Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the Applicant pursuant to section 27 of the SRC Act 1988, an additional amount in respect of non-economic loss, and the matter is remitted to the Respondent for determination of that amount according to law.

The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceedings relating to Matter No N2006/68, as agreed or taxed.

..............................................
Professor T Sourdin, Member
Dr M Thorpe, Member

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, sections 16, 19, 24, 27
Comcare v Amorebieta (1996) 66 FCR 83
Williams v Australian Postal Corporation [2006] AATA 695 (11 August 2006)
Martin v Australian Postal Corporation [1999] FCA 655 (14 May 1999)
Salisbury v Australian Iron and Steel (1943) 44 SR (NSW) 157
Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Limited v Hankinson (1967) 117 CLR 19
REASONS FOR DECISION

30 November 2006 Professor T Sourdin, Member
Dr M Thorpe, Member

1. Mr Hedges is a 45 year old man who began working with Australia Post in early 2001 as a technical officer. On 30 June 2004, he stumbled on a step at work and fell forward some distance striking his head on a large stainless steel sink. He was unconscious for a short time and his forehead left a large impression on the stainless steel sink. Following the fall, he experienced bruising and lacerations to his forehead and lost some movement in his arms and legs. He was admitted to Royal North Shore Hospital (‘RNSH’) under the care of Professor Michael Ryan for a period of two days.

2. During his period of admission to RNSH, an MRI scan showed narrowing of the spinal canal due to osteophyte formation and a disc protrusion at C4/5 with osteophytes at C5/6 and C6/7. Essentially, Mr Ryan had multiple level degenerative changes. Prior to Mr Ryan’s work accident on 30 June 2004, he had some symptoms of a painful neck and shoulder and possibly some neurological symptoms which arose following a self drive holiday in Queensland in April 2004. These earlier symptoms led to a CT scan being undertaken in April 2004 which showed degenerative changes however no further action was taken as Mr Hedges symptoms had subsided by the end of April 2004.
3. All evidence given to the Tribunal…

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 Hedges 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: [2006] AATA 1027
Decision Date: 30 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant in this case was pursuing compensation from the Australian Postal Corporation for a permanent impairment of his cervical spine, which arose from a work-related accident. The dispute was reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The Applicant argued that the initial decision to deny him compensation was incorrect, particularly in light of the Tribunal's finding that the degeneration of his cervical spine was caused by the work accident, despite the presence of an underlying condition of cervical canal stenosis. The Australian Postal Corporation contested the Applicant's claims, asserting that the degeneration was not solely attributable to the accident and that there was no causal link between the accident and the pre-existing condition.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the degeneration of the Applicant's cervical spine was caused by the work accident and, if so, whether this degeneration constituted a permanent impairment warranting compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The court also had to determine if there was a proper nexus between the work injury and the pre-existing condition that contributed to the Applicant's condition. The court considered relevant case law, including Comcare v Amorebieta and Williams v Australian Postal Corporation, to guide its interpretation of the statutory provisions and the application of common law principles to the facts of the case.

The court found that the Applicant's degeneration of the cervical spine was indeed caused by the work accident and that this constituted a 10% whole person permanent impairment. The Tribunal's decision had incorrectly found that the underlying stenosis was the primary cause of the Applicant's condition. The court emphasised that the degeneration was a result of the work accident and that the pre-existing condition did not preclude compensation for the injury caused by the accident. The court set aside the original decision and substituted a new determination that the Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the Applicant for the permanent impairment and remitted the matter for determination of non-economic loss and costs.

The final orders of the court required the Australian Postal Corporation to pay compensation for the 10% whole person permanent impairment, to pay additional compensation for non-economic loss, and to cover the Applicant's costs of the proceedings. The matter was remitted to the Respondent for the determination of the amount of compensation for non-economic loss in accordance with the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

The determination of 29 November 2005 and the reviewable decision of 9 December 2005 in Matter No N2006/68 are set aside, and the following determination is substituted:

* The Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the Applicant pursuant to section 24 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the SRC Act”) an amount of $14,135.12 in respect of a 10% whole person permanent impairment of the cervical spine resulting from the injury.

* The Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the Applicant pursuant to section 27 of the SRC Act 1988, an additional amount in respect of non-economic loss, and the matter is remitted to the Respondent for determination of that amount according to law.

* The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceedings relating to Matter No N2006/68, as agreed or taxed.

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.