Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 223
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
)A2003/460
)A2006/35
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re VLADISLAV MARINOV Applicant
And
COMCARE
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member
Dr M. Miller, MemberDate10 March 2006
PlaceCanberra
Decision The decisions under review are affirmed. ..............................................
Mr S. Webb, Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION - liability – determination to accept liability for regional pain syndrome - consent decision of Tribunal finding regional pain syndrome resolved – consent decision disputed – claim for regional pain syndrome and psychological sequela of physical injuries – eccentric behaviour and subjective symptomatology - conflicting medical evidence - credit - evidence not sufficient to disturb previous Tribunal findings and decision – no identifiable psychiatric disorder – eccentric behaviour does not equate to injury - no aggravation of previous compensable condition - decisions affirmed
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ss 33, 42C
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 14, 16, 19, 24, 62
Lees v Comcare (1999) 29 AAR 350
Hannaford v Telstra Corporation Limited [2005] FCA 1298
Riddle v Telstra Corporation Limited [2006] FCA 58
Commonwealth v Muratore (1978) 141 CLR 296
Comcare v Nichols [1999] FCA 209
Re Beer and Australian Telecommunications Commission [1990] AATA 5974
Comcare v Grimes (1994) 19 AAR 422
Re Matusko and Australian Postal Corporation (1995) 21 AAR 9
Re Lewis and Comcare [2000] AATA 158
Morales v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 154 ALR 51
Re Quin and Australian Postal Corporation (1992) 15 AAR 519
Re Liu and Comcare (2004) 79 ALD 119
Re Beer and Telstra Corporation Limited [1994] AATA 9838
Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439
Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FCR 316
Federal Broom Co. Pty. Limited v. Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Wiegand v Comcare (2002) 72 ALD 795
REASONS FOR DECISION
10 March 2006 Mr S. Webb, Member
Dr M. Miller, Member1. By this application Vladislav Marinov is seeking relief from reviewable decisions by Comcare (dated 3 December 2003 and 10 February 2006) to deny his claims for compensation in relation to a bilateral upper limb condition (regional pain syndrome), which it is alleged arose as a result of repetitive keying duties in his employment by the Department of Defence, and an unspecified psychological condition, which it is alleged arose from his previously accepted physical injuries.
2. The matter is complicated by Mr Marinov’s assertion that a prior consent decision of the Tribunal, the terms of which he agreed at the time, whereby it was decided that his compensable regional pain syndrome had resolved on 26 July 2002, was incorrect.
3. The matter came on for hearing in Canberra on 21 February 2006. Mr Marinov gave oral evidence and was represented by Mr C. Erskine, counsel. Comcare was represented by Ms L. Walker, counsel. Drs W. Lucas, J. Bobba, B. Stevens, W. Glaser, V. Pascall and Professor J. Lance gave oral evidence. Materials were tendered and labelled for identification.
4. For reasons…
Continue reading Marinov and Comcare
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Marinov and Comcare [2006] AATA 223
- Case
- [2006] AATA 223
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues in the case involved the sufficiency of evidence to overturn the Tribunal's previous findings, the creditability of medical evidence, and the interpretation of eccentric behaviour in relation to compensable injury. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Tribunal's findings were sufficiently supported by evidence, whether eccentric behaviour equated to a compensable injury, and if there had been any aggravation of a previous compensable condition.
The court found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to disturb the Tribunal's previous findings, which had determined that Marinov's regional pain syndrome had resolved. The court emphasised that there was no identifiable psychiatric disorder and that eccentric behaviour did not equate to an injury. Furthermore, the court held that there had been no aggravation of a previous compensable condition. Consequently, the decisions of the AAT were affirmed.
The court's decision was grounded in the principles established by relevant case law, ensuring consistency with precedents such as Lees v Comcare, Riddle v Telstra Corporation Limited, and others. The court concluded that the Tribunal had appropriately exercised its discretion in assessing the evidence and that the appeal lacked merit.
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.