Lillo and Comcare

Link copied
Case Copied 56 min read

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1376

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION        )          No 2004/1317

)          No 2005/713

)         No 2005/1034
Re  Francisco Javier Lillo

Applicant

And

 Comcare

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal  Senior Member R Hunt & Member Dr M Thorpe

Date 29 May 2007

Place Sydney

Decision  The decisions under review are affirmed.

…............[Sgd].................

R Hunt

Presiding Member

11.      On 16 April 2004, Comcare notified Mr Lillo of its determination that he was no longer entitled to compensation pursuant to ss 14, 16, 19 and 29 of the Act, on and from 13 April 2004. Comcare also advised Mr Lillo that it did not accept liability for a depressive condition or sleep disorder condition and that it would not bear the cost of further counselling. On 6 August 2004, an Independent Review Officer (IRO) affirmed the determination that Comcare would pay no more compensation from 13 April 2004. The notification letter to Mr Lillo clarified that, “(T)o the extent that section 14 of the [SRC] Act 1988 permits, I determine that there is no further entitlement  to compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with section 16 (medical treatment), section 19 (incapacity payments) and section 29 (household assistance) …”. With the determination, the delegate enclosed the letter of 10 March 2004, in which Comcare first notified Mr Lillo that it had decided he was no longer suffering the effects of the injuries he sustained on 26 June 2003. Medical evidence on which Comcare relied was set out in that letter.

Mr Lillo’s Evidence

12.      Mr Lillo gave evidence that the accident in June 2003 happened as he was walking through the Galleries Victoria on his way to work at the ATO. As he was approaching an escalator, his right foot became caught under a carpet and he fell forward heavily onto his chest. Mr Lillo said he could not save himself because he was carrying a briefcase, a bottle of water and a plastic bag containing some fruit when he fell. He told us he received a very strong impact on the chest, the stomach, and the knee. Mr Lillo said a lady picked him up. He indicated that she had grabbed him by the collar of his shirt or jacket, dragged him away from the escalator and propped him in a seated position against a wall. When he had recovered sufficiently, he continued on his way to work and reported the fall. He said he left work early and went home before going to see Dr Carl Robalino.

13.      Mr Lillo said his son drove him to the doctor. Dr Robalino prescribed a pain killer and anti-inflammatory medication. Dr Robalino gave him a certificate as well, which certified Mr Lillo as unfit for work until about 14 July 2003. The doctor also referred Mr Lillo to a specialist, Dr David Manohar. Mr Lillo recalled that Dr Manohar sent him for a bone scan around 10 July 2003. A report of the scan…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lillo and Comcare 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 1376
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lillo brought a claim against Comcare for psychological and psychiatric injuries that he claimed arose from his employment with the Commonwealth. The dispute was heard and determined by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The central legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the applicant's psychological or psychiatric injury arose from his employment, and if his employment caused a permanent impairment. The court had to determine if the applicant's psychiatric injury was a direct consequence of his employment, and if there was a causal link between the employment and the claimed permanent impairment.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that the applicant's psychological or psychiatric injury was not caused by his employment. The court found that there was no evidence to support the claim that the work caused the psychological or psychiatric injury. Additionally, the court determined that there was no causal link between the employment and the alleged permanent impairment. The court relied on the applicable statutory provisions and relevant case law in reaching its decision. The reasoning and outcome were based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the law.

The court affirmed the decisions under review, meaning that the applicant's claims were dismissed. The final orders of the court were that the decisions under review were affirmed, and the applicant's claims for psychological and psychiatric injuries and permanent impairment were rejected.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decisions under review are 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.