Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1250
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) Nos S 200500018 and
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) S 200600331
Re JOSE JOAQUIM Applicant
And
COMCARE
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President D G Jarvis Date23 April 2007
PlaceAdelaide
Decision 1. The tribunal affirms the decision under review made on 23 December 2005 to the effect that the injury to the applicant’s right shoulder was not the result of his ruptured biceps.
2. The tribunal sets aside the decision under review made on 18 September 2006 to the effect that the respondent was not liable for the injury to the applicant’s right shoulder, and in place of that decision, decides that the respondent is liable for the rotator cuff tendonitis and impingement syndrome of the applicant’s right shoulder.
3. The tribunal affirms the further decision under review made on 18 September 2006 that the respondent is not liable to pay compensation in respect of permanent impairment of the applicant’s right shoulder, on the grounds that the injury to the applicant’s right shoulder has not resulted at present in a permanent impairment.
4. The tribunal reserves the question of costs for further consideration.
D G Jarvis
(Signed)Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - Commonwealth employees - applicant engaged in heavy repetitive manual work - rupture of biceps tendon - agreed assessment of permanent impairment resulting from ruptured biceps - applicant now suffering from rotator cuff tendonitis and impingement syndrome - subsequent claim for these rotator cuff conditions - x-ray revealed hooked acromion - applicant susceptible to injury from effects of heavy work - employment caused onset of degenerative rotator cuff conditions - rehabilitative treatment will not restore applicant to pre-injury condition - inquisitorial role of the tribunal - applicant has not undertaken all reasonable rehabilitative treatment - meaning of “reasonable rehabilitative treatment” - meaning of “contributed to in a material degree” - decision that rotator cuff conditions not the result of ruptured biceps affirmed - decision to reject alternative claim that rotator cuff conditions not contributed to in a material degree by applicant’s employment set aside - decision to reject claim for permanent impairment affirmed.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), ss 5, 14 and 24(2)(c)
Australian Postal Corporation v Burch (1998) 85 FCR 264
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
Comcare v Canute (2005) 148 FCR 232
Comcare v Filla (2002) 115 FCR 163
Comcare v Sahu-Khan [2007] FCA 15
Commonwealth v Smith (1989) 18 ALD 224
Dragojlovic v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 301
Murray v Shillingsworth [2006] NSW CA 367
Re Welsford and Commonwealth Banking Corporation (1984) 1 AAR 42
Suters v Australian Postal Corporation (1992) 28 ALD 320
Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FCR 316
Wiegand v Comcare Australia (2002) 72 ALD 795
Wiegand v Comcare Australia (No. 2) [2007] FCA 237
Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 187 CLR 310
REASONS FOR DECISION
23 April 2007 Deputy President D…
Continue reading Joaquim and Comcare
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Joaquim and Comcare [2007] AATA 1250
- Case
- [2007] AATA 1250
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues at the heart of the case centred on the interpretation of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), particularly sections 5, 14 and 24(2)(c). The tribunal was tasked with deciding whether the rotator cuff conditions were a result of the ruptured biceps or were instead attributable to Joaquim's employment. It was also required to assess whether Joaquim had undertaken all reasonable rehabilitative treatment and whether his employment had contributed to his conditions in a material degree. Furthermore, the tribunal needed to determine if the rotator cuff conditions had resulted in permanent impairment.
The tribunal began by affirming the earlier decision that the rotator cuff conditions were not a result of the ruptured biceps tendon. However, it set aside the decision that Comcare was not liable for the rotator cuff conditions, ruling instead that Comcare was liable for Joaquim's rotator cuff tendonitis and impingement syndrome. The tribunal held that the evidence showed that Joaquim's employment had caused the onset of these degenerative conditions. The tribunal also affirmed the decision that Comcare was not liable to pay compensation for permanent impairment, as at the time of the decision, Joaquim's shoulder had not resulted in a permanent impairment.
The tribunal reserved the question of costs for further consideration. This decision underscores the importance of detailed evidence and interpretation of statutory provisions in determining the liability of employers under workers’ compensation law, and highlights the tribunal's role in ensuring that employees receive appropriate compensation for work-related injuries.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The tribunal affirms the decision under review made on 23 December 2005 to the effect that the injury to the applicant’s right shoulder was not the result of his ruptured biceps.
2. The tribunal sets aside the decision under review made on 18 September 2006 to the effect that the respondent was not liable for the injury to the applicant’s right shoulder, and in place of that decision, decides that the respondent is liable for the rotator cuff tendonitis and impingement syndrome of the applicant’s right shoulder.
3. The tribunal affirms the further decision under review made on 18 September 2006 that the respondent is not liable to pay compensation in respect of permanent impairment of the applicant’s right shoulder, on the grounds that the injury to the applicant’s right shoulder has not resulted at present in a permanent impairment.
4. The tribunal reserves the question of costs for further consideration.
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.