Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 889
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) Nos 2010/2915 & 2010/4700
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re DAVID LYNCH Applicant
And
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President D G Jarvis Date14 December 2011
PlaceAdelaide
Decision 1. In matter number 2010/2915, the tribunal sets aside the decision under review, and in place of that decision decides that:
(a) the respondent is liable for compensation under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC Act) in respect of the injury sustained by the applicant on 23 September 2008;
(b) the applicant has remained partially incapacitated for work as a result of that injury from and after 16 March 2010 and up to the date of this decision;
(c) the applicant is entitled to compensation under ss 16 and 19 of the SRC Act in respect of that injury.
2. In matter number 2010/4700, the tribunal sets aside the decision under review, and in place of that decision decides that:
(a) the respondent is liable for compensation under ss 14, 16 and 19 of the SRC Act for the aggravation of the applicant’s pre-existing degenerative condition of the lumbar spine that occurred at work on 17 June 2010;
(b) the applicant was no longer incapacitated as a result of that aggravation by the date when the applicant returned to his work as a linesman; and
(c) the applicant is not incapacitated as a result of that aggravation as at the date of this decision.
3. The tribunal remits both matters to the respondent to calculate the compensation payable to the applicant in consequence of the above decisions.
4. The tribunal reserves liberty to apply on or before 16 January 2012 in relation to the costs of the proceedings, and orders that in the absence of any such application, the respondent is to pay the costs of the proceedings.
..............................................
Deputy President
Background Facts
6. The following background facts are based on the evidence of Mr Lynch and documentary material before me, and are not in contention. I found Mr Lynch to be an honest, forthright and matter-of-fact witness. I accept his evidence. There was no suggestion from any of the doctors who have examined him that his symptoms were affected by non-organic or psycho-social factors, or that he has exaggerated his symptoms. I formed the impression that if anything, he understated his symptoms and their effect.
7. Mr Lynch is 55 years of age. He has been employed by Telstra for over 30 years, and for about the last 10 years has worked as a linesman. This involved detecting faults, effecting repairs and installing telephone equipment. Prior to the event of 23 September 2008, his work involved going into manholes and pits, and lifting concrete and metal manhole covers, some of which, he estimated, weighed up to 50 kilograms. He also had to handle ladders which were about 6.5 metres long, and on occasions had to crawl…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Lynch and Telstra Corporation Limited 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] AATA 889
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the AAT had to decide were whether Telstra's initial injury liability extended to cover the later aggravation of Lynch's condition, and if the cessation of compensation for the initial injury was justified. Another issue was whether the term "injury" in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC Act) should include subsequent aggravations of pre-existing conditions, and how the term "disease" should be interpreted in the context of these injuries. The AAT also had to consider whether there were changed circumstances that justified stopping compensation.
The AAT found that the work-related events caused Lynch's susceptibility to future aggravations of his pre-existing degenerative condition, and that his employment significantly contributed to these aggravations. The tribunal held that there was no evidence of changed circumstances to support the cessation of compensation for the initial injury. The tribunal set aside the decisions under review and ruled that Telstra was liable for compensation for both the initial injury and the aggravation of Lynch's condition. The tribunal emphasised that the work-related events gave rise to compensable injuries under the SRC Act.
The tribunal ordered that Telstra was liable for compensation for the initial injury and the aggravation of Lynch's degenerative condition. It determined that Lynch remained partially incapacitated for work due to the initial injury but was no longer incapacitated due to the aggravation. The tribunal set aside the previous decisions and remitted the matters back to Telstra to calculate the compensation payable. It also reserved the right to apply for costs of the proceedings by a specified date, and ordered that Telstra would pay the costs if no such application was made.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. In matter number 2010/2915, the tribunal sets aside the decision under review, and in place of that decision decides that:
(a) the respondent is liable for compensation under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC Act) in respect of the injury sustained by the applicant on 23 September 2008;
(b) the applicant has remained partially incapacitated for work as a result of that injury from and after 16 March 2010 and up to the date of this decision;
(c) the applicant is entitled to compensation under ss 16 and 19 of the SRC Act in respect of that injury.
2. In matter number 2010/4700, the tribunal sets aside the decision under review, and in place of that decision decides that:
(a) the respondent is liable for compensation under ss 14, 16 and 19 of the SRC Act for the aggravation of the applicant’s pre-existing degenerative condition of the lumbar spine that occurred at work on 17 June 2010;
(b) the applicant was no longer incapacitated as a result of that aggravation by the date when the applicant returned to his work as a linesman; and
(c) the applicant is not incapacitated as a result of that aggravation as at the date of this decision.
3. The tribunal remits both matters to the respondent to calculate the compensation payable to the applicant in consequence of the above decisions.
4. The tribunal reserves liberty to apply on or before 16 January 2012 in relation to the costs of the proceedings, and orders that in the absence of any such application, the respondent is to pay the costs of the proceedings.
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.