Johnson and Australian Postal Corporation - [2007] AATA 2086

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 2086
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2006/1032

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re ANITA JOHNSON

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member
Dr MEC Thorpe, Member
Date21 December 2007
PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

…………………[Sgd]…………………
Ms N Isenberg
Senior Member

15.Dr Rizkallah, Orthopaedic Surgeon, considered there to be a need for further right median nerve decompression, which he performed on 3 February 2005. The operative findings were:
Scar tissue +++. Tight and thick flexor retinaculum. Evidence of medial nerve attenuation.

16.     A further nerve conduction study by Dr Jonathon Wood dated 29 March 2005 showed bilateral slowing of median nerve conduction across the wrist, but Dr Wood did not have the earlier nerve conduction studies for comparison.
17.     In follow up, Dr Rizkallah considered there to be reasonable improvement, although Dr Chase reported ongoing symptoms of CTS (9 May 2005), with ongoing pain, dysesthesia and a positive Tinel's test.
18.     Professor Sambrook was provided with 52 medical reports when he first examined Mrs Johnson on 14 June 2007. The history taken was that sometime between January and March 2001 Mrs Johnson developed pins and needles in the hands. At that time she was more troubled by her shoulder, and it had not been until June 2002 that she was referred to Dr McManis for nerve conduction studies. Professor Sambrook placed considerable reliance on Dr McManis whom he knew to be Mayo Clinic trained and an expert in nerve conduction studies. Professor Sambrook accepts the diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel lesion treated surgically with a less than optimal outcome. Under cross examination he said that CTS does not always get better after surgery. He also made the observation that resolution after surgery does not exclude the diagnosis of CTS. He noted Mrs Johnson to have some arthritis in the left wrist, but did not consider this to be symptomatic. Currently she continues to complain of constant pins and needles in both hands, the right worse than the left. She also gets a shooting pain over the palmar aspect of the wrists.
19.      Professor Sambrook referred to a body of literature about the association of doing repetitive work, especially repetitive manual activity, and CTS, and referred to two meta-analyses of published studies of work-related CTS. His opinion was that repetitive manual work has been linked to CTS, regardless of any pre-existing disposition of a constitutional nature, and there was a probable relationship in Mrs Johnson's case. He discounted the possible role of her treated hypothyroidism in the genesis of CTS as she is on appropriate thyroid medication. His oral evidence was that repetition was the main factor and if it was forceful, it was more likely to result in CTS.
20.     Dr Selby Brown, Orthopaedic Surgeon, accepted the diagnosis of CTS based on the history, nerve conduction studies and the need for surgery. His explanation for ongoing symptoms in the wrists…

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 Johnson 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: [2007] AATA 2086
Decision Date: 21 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Johnson versus Australian Postal Corporation, the dispute arose from a claim for workers' compensation due to an injury sustained by Mr. Johnson. The case was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AATA), which was tasked with reviewing a decision made by Comcare. The crux of the dispute lay in the assessment of Mr. Johnson's injury, specifically his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and the resultant permanent impairment rating. Mr. Johnson contended that the impairment rating, which was less than 10 per cent, did not accurately reflect the impact of his condition on his ability to work, particularly in terms of hand grasping and digital dexterity.

The primary legal issues that the Tribunal needed to address were whether the assessment of Mr. Johnson's impairment correctly reflected the functional limitations imposed by his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and whether the evidence provided was sufficient to warrant a higher impairment rating. The Tribunal was required to consider the relevant statutory provisions under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), and to review the medical evidence provided by both parties. The case also drew on previous decisions, such as Comcare v Fiedler and Re Smith and Telstra, to ascertain the appropriate legal principles and standards to apply in this context.

The Tribunal meticulously reviewed the medical evidence, including assessments from various medical professionals, and evaluated the impact of Mr. Johnson's condition on his ability to perform work-related tasks. It determined that the evidence did not support a higher impairment rating, as the functional limitations described by Mr. Johnson did not align with the more severe impairments typically associated with higher ratings. The Tribunal found that the decision under review was consistent with the statutory provisions and the evidence presented, and thus affirmed the decision. The Tribunal's reasoning emphasised the importance of aligning the impairment rating with the functional impact of the condition, as evidenced by the medical reports. The final orders confirmed the affirmation of the decision under review.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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.