Newitt and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Gavin Newitt (“the Applicant”) to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for a review of a decision by Comcare (“the Respondent”). The Respondent's decision affirmed a prior determination to decline further compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss under the *Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (“SRC Act”), on the basis that the Applicant had already received the maximum payable amount. The Applicant's claim related to bladder neck obstruction, which he contended had worsened since a previous assessment.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant's current level of impairment, specifically concerning bladder function and sexual function, resulted in an increase of at least 10% Whole Person Impairment (WPI) since a prior determination. A further issue was whether Table 12.7 or Table 10.3 of the Comcare Guide applied to the assessment of the Applicant's impairment.

The Tribunal applied Section 28(4) of the SRC Act, which mandates that the approved Comcare Guide is binding in the assessment of permanent impairment. The Applicant argued for an increased lump sum due to a greater need for self-catheterisation. However, the Tribunal found that the Respondent correctly submitted that the Applicant's increased need for self-catheterisation did not justify an assessment higher than the maximum of 50% WPI under Table 12.7, which had already been awarded. The Tribunal also found that Table 10.3 was inapplicable as the Applicant's impairment was a sequela of cauda equina syndrome, not localised pathology. Regarding sexual function, the Tribunal noted a reported decrease in WPI from a previous award, thus not supporting a further claim.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Reviewable Decision of 8 April 2021, finding that the Applicant had not demonstrated an increase of at least 10% WPI in bladder function impairment since the prior 50% WPI award under Table 12.7, and that Table 10.3 was not applicable.