Muggleton and Comcare - [2008] AATA 883

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 883
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2007/5070

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re ROSS MUGGLETON

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr R G Kenny, Member
Date3 October 2008
PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
..................[Sgd].......................
Member

CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – Injury – series of injuries during employment – incapacity – incapacity due to successive aggravations of pre-existing spondylolisthesis L5/S1 – compensation paid for associated incapacity – aggravations temporary in their effect – aggravation no longer contributing to incapacity – cessation of compensation - decision under review affirmed.
Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 ss 27, 45(2A) and 39
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 14, 16, 19
Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission (1989) 86 ALR 399; (1989) 17 ALD 321
Martin v Australian Postal Corp [1999] FCA 655; (1999) 29 AAR 420
Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Davis (1991) 30 FCR 467
Salisbury v Australian Iron and Steel Ltd (1943) 44 SR (NSW) 157
REASONS FOR DECISION

3 October 2008 Mr R G Kenny, Member

DECISION UNDER REVIEW
1.      Mr Ross Muggleton received incapacity payments in accordance with the terms of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (“the 1971 Act”) and its successor the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”) periodically from 1981 and since he last worked in 1987. This was in relation to employment-related aggravation of a lower back condition. On 7 May 2007, Comcare determined that the aggravation no longer materially contributed to Mr Muggleton’s incapacity and that, as a result, it was no longer liable to pay compensation for medical expenses or incapacity benefits under s 16 and s 19, respectively, of the Act. That decision was affirmed in the reviewable decision dated 24 August 2007.
BACKGROUND
2.      Liability was initially accepted with compensation and medical expenses paid to Mr Muggleton under ss 27, 45(2A) and 39, respectively of the 1971 Act. This was for “low back pain” resulting from an injury to Mr Muggleton on 9 November 1981 while he was employed as an apprentice carpenter with the Department of Housing and Construction. On 21 December 1982, 30 July 1985 and 21 March 1988, further claims were accepted by Comcare in relation to Mr Muggleton’s back. These were for aggravation of spondylolisthesis L5/S1 resulting from an injury on 11 January 1982, disc lesion resulting from an injury on 9 May 1985 and aggravation of spondylolisthesis L5/S1 resulting from an injury on 8 October 1986.
3.      On 26 May 1987 and 1 October 1987, Mr Muggleton was assessed by a Commonwealth Medical Officer (CMO), Dr R Ward, as being unfit to perform his duties. On 29 October 1987, Dr Ward recommended that he be retired on medical grounds. In May 1996, Mr Muggleton received $270,000 in settlement of a common law damages claim against the Commonwealth of Australia. In accordance with s 99 of the 1971 Act, Comcare recovered $152,588.78 from…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Muggleton and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Muggleton and Comcare [2008] AATA 883
Case: [2008] AATA 883
Decision Date: 3 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Muggleton brought an appeal against a decision by Comcare, seeking compensation for a series of injuries sustained during his employment. The crux of the dispute was whether the compensation for incapacity, which had been paid due to successive aggravations of pre-existing spondylolisthesis at L5/S1, should continue after the aggravations were deemed no longer contributing to his incapacity. The matter was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The legal issues the court had to address were whether the aggravations were temporary in their effect and if the cessation of compensation was justified given the nature of the injuries and their impact on Muggleton’s incapacity. The court needed to interpret relevant sections of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, considering precedents such as Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission, Martin v Australian Postal Corp, Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Davis, and Salisbury v Australian Iron and Steel Ltd.

The AAT found that the aggravations of Muggleton’s spondylolisthesis were temporary and no longer contributed to his incapacity, leading to the cessation of compensation. The Tribunal upheld the decision, reasoning that the injuries, while serious, had stabilised to a point where they did not continue to incapacitate Muggleton. The AAT examined the statutory provisions and the case law, determining that the compensation should cease as the aggravating factors were no longer affecting his ability to work. The Tribunal confirmed that the decision under review was correct and aligned with the legal framework governing such claims.

The AAT’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented regarding the nature and extent of Muggleton's injuries, the effect of the aggravations, and the statutory provisions governing compensation for incapacity. The court concluded that the cessation of compensation was justified, affirming the decision made by Comcare. This conclusion was consistent with the legislative intent and previous judicial interpretations of similar cases. The final orders of the AAT were to affirm the decision under review, effectively ending the compensation for incapacity related to the successive aggravations of Muggleton’s pre-existing condition.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		ROSS MUGGLETON