McCredden and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to request a reconsideration of a determination made by the Australian Postal Corporation regarding a compensation claim. The applicant, McCredden, had suffered a motorcycle injury and sought to have liability extended to include an injury to his right hip, which he claimed arose from the incident. The Australian Postal Corporation had previously determined that it was not liable for the right hip injury, although it indicated that further medical evidence might lead to a reconsideration.

The primary legal issue before the Member was whether to grant the applicant an extension of time to request a reconsideration of the Australian Postal Corporation's determination concerning his right hip injury. The applicant argued that the determining authority had failed to properly consider the evidence connecting his right hip injury to the accident and that this failure contributed to the delay in addressing his claim. The respondent contended that the initial determination had addressed the right hip injury and that any offer to reconsider was contingent on the provision of specific additional medical evidence, which had not been sufficiently provided.

The Member considered the provisions of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act), specifically Part VI concerning reconsideration and review of determinations. Section 62(2) of the SRC Act allows for a request for reconsideration within 30 days of a determination coming to the claimant's notice, or within such further period as the determining authority allows. The applicant's request for an extension was made significantly out of time, approximately one to two years after the relevant determinations. The Member noted the substantial delay and the potential prejudice to the respondent.

The application for an extension of time was refused. The Member found that the applicant had not provided sufficient grounds to justify the significant delay in seeking a reconsideration, and that the respondent had adequately addressed the claim for the right hip injury in its previous determinations, albeit with a finding of no liability.