Herbert v Workers Compensation Commission

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Herbert v Workers Compensation Commission [2016] NSWCATAD 28
Hearing dates:	Decision on the papers
Date of orders:	11 February 2016
Decision date:	11 February 2016
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	J Kelly, Senior Member
Decision:	The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review any of the decisions the applicant identified.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – to review decisions of the Workers Compensation Commission
Legislation Cited:	Workers Compensation Act 1987 s 2A Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 ss 39 and 233 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 28, 54 Fair Trading Act 1987 ss 4, 79B, 79D, 79E, 79F, 79G Australian Consumer Law ss 18(1), 21(1) Consumer Claims Act 1998 ss 3, 3A, 7
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Denise Faasegi Herbert (Applicant) NSW Workers Compensation Commission (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: S Herbert (Applicant in Person) Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	1510392

Reasons for Decision

The issue in this case

1. Denise Herbert (the applicant), claims this Tribunal has jurisdiction to review several decisions made by several officers of the NSW Workers Compensation Commission (the respondent) in respect of the applicant’s claim for workers compensation arising from a stroke she suffered on 5 August 2014 at work. The respondent claims that it does not.

2. For the reasons that follow, I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in respect of any of the decisions the applicant identified.

The application

3. The applicant lodged an External Appeal Form in this Tribunal on 8 July 2015.

4. The Grounds for Appeal were:

1. That the New South Wales Workers Compensation Commission has a statutory duty to adjudicate between the injured employee once the employee sustains an injury in the course of their employment in which compensation is payable under the statutory NSW Workers Compensation Acts of 1987 & 1998.

2. That the New South Wales Compensation Commission failed to give the correct weight to the injured employee’s evidence without limitation to her submitted Neurologist Professor Paul Teychenne’s Medico Legal Report, her treating doctor’s report and “Precedent/Authorities Australian High Court Case Law”.

3. That they misinterpreted and or used the wrong interpretation/words of the relevant NSW legislative Workers Compensation Acts and applied the wrong facts.

4. That the respondent did not give the Appellant an adequate opportunity to present her case.

5. The applicant claimed that the appeal was lodged within the time allowed under the relevant legislation. She indicated that she attached a copy of the decision she was appealing and that she was notified about the decision on 10 June 2015.

6. The “decision” attached to the application was an email to the applicant’s representative from Kathryn Camp dated “jun 10”. The email began:

We refer to your correspondence below regarding the appeal sought to be filed in the Commission on 28 May 2015 against Senior Arbitrator Moore’s determination dated 14 October 2014.

On 4 June 2015 that appeal was rejected, due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements of s 352…