Lawson and Stateships

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 643

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No 2007/1541

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		BARRY LAWSON

Applicant

And STATESHIPS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President S D Hotop
Dr D Weerasooriya, Member

Date23 July 2008

PlacePerth

Decision The Tribunal sets aside the deemed reviewable decision of the respondent and, in substitution therefor, decides that the respondent is liable, pursuant to ss 24 and 26(1) of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth), to pay compensation, in accordance with that Act, to the applicant in respect of the psychiatric disorder which he contracted in or about June 2006.

..........[sgd S D Hotop]...........

Deputy President

3.       Following a failure by the respondent to determine the abovementioned claim for compensation, the applicant, on 11 April 2007, lodged with the Tribunal an application for review of a deemed reviewable decision of the respondent disallowing that claim.

The Issue and the Tribunal’s Determination

4. The issue for the Tribunal’s determination is whether compensation is payable to the applicant under the Act pursuant to his claim of 12 July 2006.

5.       For the reasons which follow, the Tribunal has determined that compensation is so payable to the applicant

The Evidence

6.       The evidence before the Tribunal comprised:

· the “T Documents” (T1-T102, pp 1-166) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth);

·     Exhibits A1 – A6 tendered by the applicant;

·     Exhibits R1 – R3 tendered by the respondent;

·     the oral evidence of the applicant and of Dr J Knight and Sister E Cattalini.

The Recent Factual Background

7.       On 31 October 2005 Dr P Martin, Westport Medical Centre, issued a “Workers’ Compensation PROGRESS Medical Certificate” in which he certified that the applicant continued to be totally unfit for work by reason of his right knee condition, and indicated, as regards return to work options, that a vocational rehabilitation assessment was required and that the “choice of provider [was] to be discussed with the worker”.  (T20)

8.       On 24 January 2006 Dr P Gibson, Westport Medical Centre, issued a progress medical certificate to the same effect as the abovementioned certificate issued on 31 October 2005.  (T22)

9.       On 27 February 2006 Mr G Forward, Orthopaedic Surgeon, reported to the respondent’s solicitors that the applicant, by reason of his right knee condition,

“has a limited ability for heavy physical work but would be able to carry out a wide range of clerical duties and would be fit for light duties such as storeman or sedentary attendant.”  (T24)

10.     On 20 April 2006 Dr P Martin issued a progress medical certificate to the same effect as the abovementioned certificates.  (T25)

11.     By facsimile dated 20 April 2006 the respondent’s solicitors requested the applicant to advise of his “availability to attend a vocational assessment with an injury management consultant”.  (T26)

12.     By facsimile dated 24 April 2006 the applicant responded to the abovementioned request as follows:

“…