Liddell and Comcare (Compensation)
Case
•
[2017] AATA 878
•16 June 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Liddell and Comcare (Compensation) [2017] AATA 878
[2017] AATA 878
16 June 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Ms Liddell, against a decision by Comcare to refuse a further compensation claim for an increase in permanent impairment. The dispute arose from the applicant's assertion that her permanent impairment had worsened since a previous assessment, necessitating a review of her compensation entitlement. The case was heard by Deputy President McDermott and President Rfd P.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant's permanent impairment had increased by more than 10% since her last compensation award, as required by section 25(4) of the relevant Act, to justify a further award of compensation. This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's current degree of permanent impairment using the applicable edition of the Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment, which was edition 2.1 in this instance.
The Tribunal considered medical evidence from both parties. The applicant relied on reports from Dr Albert Chong and physiotherapist Amy Lee, which detailed imaging findings and the applicant's self-reported symptoms. However, the Tribunal found these reports did not assess the degree of permanent impairment according to the Guide. In contrast, the Tribunal found the report of Associate Professor Day, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, to be a comprehensive analysis of the applicant's symptoms and permanent impairment. Associate Professor Day assessed the applicant as having a 9% whole person permanent impairment. The Tribunal noted that this assessment was not challenged by the applicant.
Applying section 25(4) of the Act, and considering the applicant had previously been awarded compensation for a 10% whole person impairment, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's permanent impairment had not increased by more than 10%; in fact, it had decreased by 1%. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decision of 24 March 2016, finding it did not have the authority under the Act to make a further award of compensation.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant's permanent impairment had increased by more than 10% since her last compensation award, as required by section 25(4) of the relevant Act, to justify a further award of compensation. This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's current degree of permanent impairment using the applicable edition of the Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment, which was edition 2.1 in this instance.
The Tribunal considered medical evidence from both parties. The applicant relied on reports from Dr Albert Chong and physiotherapist Amy Lee, which detailed imaging findings and the applicant's self-reported symptoms. However, the Tribunal found these reports did not assess the degree of permanent impairment according to the Guide. In contrast, the Tribunal found the report of Associate Professor Day, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, to be a comprehensive analysis of the applicant's symptoms and permanent impairment. Associate Professor Day assessed the applicant as having a 9% whole person permanent impairment. The Tribunal noted that this assessment was not challenged by the applicant.
Applying section 25(4) of the Act, and considering the applicant had previously been awarded compensation for a 10% whole person impairment, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's permanent impairment had not increased by more than 10%; in fact, it had decreased by 1%. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decision of 24 March 2016, finding it did not have the authority under the Act to make a further award of compensation.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Expert Evidence
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0