Lord and Comcare

[2003] AATA 451

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 451

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2002/436

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		ROBERT LORD

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr EK Christie, Member

Date20 May 2003 

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal decides to vary the reviewable decision in so far as the Tribunal decides that Mr Lord's claim for compensation meets the requirements of section 16 of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930 regarding the late claim and notice.

This means the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear Mr Lord's claim for compensation.

(Sgd) EK Christie
  Member

CATCHWORDS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - Tribunal jurisdiction - lodging compensation claim more than six months after onset of injury - whether any want of or defect in notice of accident - whether prejudice to the respondent - whether "mistake" by the applicant - whether "reasonable cause" applies in applicant's circumstances.

Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930 s 16

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 s 124

Re Tierney and Reserve Bank (1988) 15 ALD 534
Comcare Australia v McGuire (1996) 68 FCR 32
Commonwealth of Australia v Connors (1989) 86 ALR 247
Black v South Melbourne [1963] VR 34
Banks v Comcare [1996] FCA 382
Murray v Baxter (1914) 18 CLR 622

REASONS FOR DECISION

20 May 2003  Dr EK Christie, Member    

1.      This is an application by Robert Lord on a preliminary jurisdictional issue in terms of whether his claim for compensation for injury pursuant to the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930 [“the CEC Act”] should proceed to a hearing. Specific statutory obligations are imposed on Mr Lord’s claim by section 16 of the CEC Act.

2.      Mr Lord’s initial claim for benefits was made on 12 December 2000, some 32 years after the events relied upon by Mr Lord have been said to have occurred.  Mr Lord has attributed his asthma and anxiety disorder conditions to fire fighting whilst in the Australian Army:

“You [Mr Lord] stated that the injury happened ‘in the back of truck – burnt lungs due to fire going around truck between Young and Wagga Wagga’.  You allege the incident occurred on 1 February 1970, and that you first noticed symptoms or sought treatment on 19 February 1970.”  (Reviewable Decision, McIver;  T41, Folio 123).

3. In the decision under review, the decision-maker (Mr I McIvor, Manager Reconsideration, 13 March 2002) concluded that Mr Lord’s application failed to satisfy the statutory obligations imposed by section 16 of the CEC Act.

4.      The reviewable decision contained the following conclusions:

“Your claim was made almost 32 years after the alleged events.  Since receiving the claim, efforts have been made by both this office and yourself to obtain documents about the alleged fire.  No such documents have been located.  In addition, you have not provided any witness statements supporting your version of events, and there is no mention of such a fire in your medical records.

The latter point is particularly relevant, as if it were the case that you…