Michael Baranski v Comcare

[2013] HCASL 174

MICHAEL BARANSKI

v

COMCARE

[2013] HCASL 174

S64/2013

1. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against an order of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Tracey and Katzmann JJ), dismissing an appeal from an order made by the Federal Court of Australia (Yates J). The Federal Court dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent to deny the applicant compensation under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ("the Act").

2. On 23 March 2007, the applicant replaced a toolbox weighing between 30 and 35 kilograms, which he had removed from a storage cabinet at his workplace.  Following this incident, the applicant complained of significant pain in his lower back and leg.  The applicant lodged a claim for workers compensation, contending that his back and leg pain were caused by an injury suffered at his workplace.

3. On 10 August 2007, the respondent accepted liability in respect of the applicant’s claim pursuant to s 14 of the Act. The applicant received monetary compensation for his injury, which was paid until 5 August 2010.

4. On 23 June 2010, the applicant's employer requested that the respondent reconsider its decision to accept liability for the applicant's injury.  A delegate of the respondent revoked its determination accepting liability on 5 August 2010 and on 10 September 2010, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

5. On 27 February 2012, the Tribunal affirmed the decision.  Before the Tribunal, oral evidence was given by the applicant and his former wife, five of his co‑workers and six medical practitioners concerning the cause of the applicant’s injury.  Due to inconsistencies in the evidence given by the applicant and others, as well as the implausibility of some of the applicant's own evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not injure himself in the way that he claimed.

6. On 31 August 2012, the Federal Court dismissed the applicant's appeal from the Tribunal on the basis that the Tribunal had correctly applied relevant principles and that it was open to the Tribunal to conclude on all the evidence that the applicant did not injure himself as he had claimed.

7. On 7 March 2013, the Full Court dismissed the applicant's appeal from the decision below on the basis that the Tribunal's decision was plainly open on the evidence and that the Tribunal was entitled to disbelieve the applicant's account of the cause of his injury.

8. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions of the courts below.  An appeal to this Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.

9. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

10        K.M. Hayne

11        9 October 2013

12        S.M. Crennan