Nicpon and Australian Postal Corporation
[2003] AATA 141
•14 February 2003
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 141
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2002/272
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re EDWARD NICPON Applicant
And
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
Dr P Lynch, Member
Mr S Webb, MemberDate14 February 2003
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision of a delegate of the Australian Postal Corporation, the Respondent in these proceedings, dated 10 January 2002 which affirmed the decision of a Review Officer of the Respondent on 8 February 2002 to disallow the compensation claim of Mr Edward Nicpon for injuries to his shoulder, neck or back under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. ...............................................
Ms G Ettinger
Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – injury – date of reporting of injury – inconsistency in reporting of pain – decision affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 14, 16
AUTHORITIES
Comcare v Burton (1998) 157 ALR 522
Comcare v Lees (1999) 56 ALD 84
REASONS FOR DECISION
14 February 2003 Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
Dr P Lynch, Member
Mr S Webb, Member1. The decision for review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) was the application of Mr Edward Nicpon (“the Applicant”) appealing against the decision of a Review Officer of the Australian Postal Corporation (“the Respondent”) on 8 February 2002 (T22), which affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Respondent on 10 January 2002 (T18) that:
“… Australia Post is not liable, under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, to pay compensation to you for any injury to the shoulder, neck or back.”
2. The reviewable decision found as follows:
“You say the injury first occurred on 20/11/01, and that you reported this on the same day. Your Manager says you first reported the injury on the 28/11/01 and your witness says you told him about your sore shoulder and neck on approximately 5/11/01.
You have lodged the claim for compensation on 28/11/01 during a PRP assessment in which you failed to meet the prescribed rate.
Comments in a record of conversation/discussion dated 29/11/01 indicate you feel pressured sometimes when approached by management about your daily performance.
Accordingly, based on this evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied that you have sustained injuries to your shoulder, neck or back in the course of your employment. I therefore affirm the decision dated 10th January 2002 to deny compensation under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.”
3. At the hearing, the Applicant was represented by Mr Q Cook, representative of the Postal Delivery Officers Union, and the Respondent was represented by Mr G Johnson of counsel. Oral evidence was given by the Applicant and Dr Robin Chase, occupational physician, who appeared before the Tribunal.
ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
4. The issues before the Tribunal were:
(a)whether the Applicant suffered an injury to his shoulder or neck on or about 20 November 2001 as claimed;
(b)and whether the injury was compensable pursuant to sections 14 and 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (“the Act”); if so,
(c)whether the Applicant is entitled to payment of compensation for incapacity and medical treatment costs during the period 21 November 2001 to 14 January 2002.
LEGISLATION
5. The relevant legislation in this matter is the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”), in particular sections 4, 14 and 16, which provide as follows:
“4 Interpretation
(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
…
injury means:
(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b) an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, being a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment; or
(c) an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment), being an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
but does not include any such disease, injury or aggravation suffered by an employee as a result of reasonable disciplinary action taken against the employee or failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with his or her employment.
…
14 Compensation for injuries
(1) Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.
(2) Compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is intentionally self‑inflicted.
(3) Compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is caused by the serious and wilful misconduct of the employee but is not intentionally self‑inflicted, unless the injury results in death, or serious and permanent impairment.
16 Compensation in respect of medical expenses etc.
(1) Where an employee suffers an injury, Comcare is liable to pay, in respect of the cost of medical treatment obtained in relation to the injury (being treatment that it was reasonable for the employee to obtain in the circumstances), compensation of such amount as Comcare determines is appropriate to that medical treatment.
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.
…”
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
6. The Tribunal had before it the following exhibits:
exhibitdescription
R1Documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
R2Report by Dr R Chase, Occupational Physician, dated 30 April 2002 with Appendices A to C.
R3Clinical records of Dr Lakshmanan concerning the Applicant.
R4Employee Leave History concerning the Applicant, dated 6 September 2002.
the applicant – mr edward nicpon
7. Mr Nicpon, whose date of birth is 18 July 1953, gave oral evidence before the Tribunal, and said that he had been employed by the Respondent for 24 years and had performed the duties of a Postal Delivery Officer for 23.5 years.
8. Mr Nicpon informed the Tribunal he started experiencing symptoms of pain in his right shoulder and back on 14 November 2001. He recalled, that previously on busy days, when he had been sorting second class mail, and been striving to meet performance standards, there had been times when he had experienced “a bit of soreness and stiffness”.
9. Mr Nicpon recalled sorting bins of second class mail, including “Open Road” magazines, into “frames”, on 14 November 2001. The bins of mail, he said, were filled to the brim and were about “30kgs in weight”, which he mentioned to his team leaders. He stated, towards the end of the 12-hour shift, he experienced pain in his right shoulder and back and complained to his supervisor, Mr Emanuele Rizzo who told him to have a rest.
10. Mr Nicpon informed the Tribunal that he had complained about the pain in his right shoulder to another supervisor, Mr David Ward some time later, but could not recall precisely when. Mr Ward, he said, recommended he consult his doctor, which he did, about a week later, attending Dr Lakshmanan. Dr Lakshmanan prescribed the anti-inflammatory medication “Vioxx”, he recalled, but did not give him a medical certificate. Mr Nicpon informed the Tribunal that he took “Vioxx” for “a couple of weeks” until it ran out, recalling that “it helped a little but not much”. Later, he claimed, his back “got worse” and he experienced “sharp spasms” at work, causing “sharp pains” in his spine, in the “lower back and the middle of the back”. He said he rang Dr Lakshmanan and went to see him “the next day”, having experienced the spasms through the night. He recalled “going on compo the next day”.
11. Mr Nicpon told the Tribunal he thought the spasms may have occurred on 20 November 2001 and he may have seen Dr Lakshmanan on 28 November 2001 about the pain in his right shoulder, he could not recall the dates. Later Mr Nicpon explained that he did not have spasms on 20 November 2001, experiencing soreness in his shoulder on that day but not “piercing pains in the spine”.
12. Mr Nicpon told the Tribunal that on 28 November 2001, he filled in an incident report as a result of the soreness of his shoulder and his neck, but continued to work (T15/37). He informed the Tribunal that the level of work increased before Christmas and claimed the sorting rack was unsafe. He said he continued to work in December 2001, but acknowledged that he took time off work for “anxiety” from 3 to 7 December 2001.
13. Mr Nicpon stated that he was off work for approximately two weeks from about 20 December 2001, he could not recall precisely. Mr Nicpon was paid compensation leave for two weeks from 21 December 2001. Later, Mr Nicpon recalled the spasms in his back occurring on or just before 21 December 2001 at approximately 7am in the morning, stating that he could not have continued working on that day because of the pain. Mr Nicpon stated that his departure on leave on 21 December 2001 was because of his back problem and had nothing to do with a forthcoming performance review on 24 December 2001, about which he was informed on that day by his team leader, Mr John Mikulandra. Mr Nicpon agreed in cross-examination that he was well enough to attend a social gathering for work on the evening of 21 December 2001.
14. Mr Nicpon explained that he attended a physiotherapist, Mr Kwok, on several occasions between 21 December 2001 and 14 January 2002 and that Dr Lakshmanan had provided him with medical certificates during this period. Mr Nicpon recalled consulting Dr Lakshmanan on 7 November 2001 in relation to hypertension and speaking with Mr Ward about being stressed “because of management” on or about 10 December 2001.
15. In reply to cross-examination by Mr Johnson, Mr Nicpon recalled taking leave for “stress” in February 2002 and related a number of conflicts with “management” and Mr Matthew Miller, as a result of which, he stated, he had been charged “for not saying Good Morning”, for “not taking a meal break at the correct time” and for “delaying the passage of mail by stopping to look at a refuse heap for approximately 30 seconds”. Mr Nicpon also told the Tribunal he is currently facing dismissal for being in possession of an “offensive weapon” at work, comprising the handle from a set of garden shears that he picked up while delivering mail with the intention of fixing his garden shears at home, but unintentionally left at work. He added the item had been under his desk for the past twelve months.
dr r chase – occupational physician
16. Dr Chase whose report dated 30 April 2002, (Exhibit R2), was before the Tribunal, also gave oral evidence. Dr Chase told the Tribunal that he had found no diagnosable shoulder or neck complaint on examination on 22 April 2002. He had noted some crepitus in the right shoulder joint on full abduction producing a “cracking noise”. Dr Chase recalled the Applicant referring to sharp pains and spasms in his “lower neck, upper back” on 20 November 2001, but no further reference was made to this incident, and Dr Chase said in oral evidence that he did not examine Mr Nicpon’s back.
17. Dr Chase noted that Mr Nicpon went off on leave on 21 December 2001, commenting that there were no clinical notes available for that time (see Exhibit R3), only Dr Lakshmanan’s medical certificate for the period 21 December 2001 to 3 January 2002 (T17). He also noted that Mr Nicpon had attended upon Dr Lakshmanan on 28 November 2001(Exhibit R3). Dr Chase commented that Dr Lakshmanan had, on 28 November 2001, recorded Mr Nicpon’s report of a pain in the shoulder, but that no mention was made of his back or neck.
18. Dr Chase was referred to Exhibit R4, Mr Nicpon’s sick leave records, which indicated past absences for lower back pain in 1998, on 2 July (back), 14 July (back) 18 September 1998 (back), 26 October 1998 (neck), 8 October 2001 (right shoulder), and 8 July 2002 (right shoulder).
19. Dr Chase in commenting on Mr Nicpon’s report of pain on or about 21 November 2001, and his departure on leave with regard to pain in the “cervical spine and back” (T17), on 21 December 2001, opined that it was unusual for symptoms of pain to suddenly flare up after persisting at a low level for a period, [a month], noting however, that this can occur. He considered that it was highly unlikely for the Applicant’s claimed shoulder condition to be in any causal way related to, or to cause pain in the lumbar to mid-scapular level of the back.
20. Dr Chase was concerned with inconsistencies in reporting of his conditions that Mr Nicpon exhibited, and thought it unlikely that a lay person would confuse the “shoulder” with the “back”, accepting however that such a person may confuse clinical terms.
21. Dr Chase stated he could not tell whether or not the Applicant had experienced symptoms on 20 November 2001, and said that he could only provide the history as given to him by the Applicant. Dr Chase told the Tribunal he had found nothing wrong with the Applicant on 22 April 2002, at which time he was fully fit for work.
22. In his report, Dr Chase commented:
“It is difficult to state with certainty whether he had any symptoms on 20 November 2001. It is therefore difficult to state with certainty that he was fit to perform his usual duties as a Postal Delivery Officer. I can state with certainty that he is fit to perform his full and normal duties as at 22 April 2002. From his history however it would appear unlikely that he required any restrictions and it is most likely that he was fit to perform his full duties.” (Exhibit R2, p2)
SUBMISSIONS
the applicant
23. Mr Cook, for the Applicant submitted that the Respondent had no good reason for rejecting the Applicant’s claim, and said that the decision had been based on a letter from Mr Miller (T16), which referred to matters that were irrelevant or prejudicial to the claim. This, Mr Cook contended, was contrary to section 108P of the Act, which requires that decisions are to be “guided by equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities”.
24. Mr Cook submitted that the medical certificates provided by Dr Lakshmanan (T17) were evidence of the Applicant’s incapacity for work during the period 21 December 2001 to 14 January 2002. If the Respondent wanted confirmation of the matters contained in these certificates, he reasoned, section 57 of the Act provided power to require a medical examination. He observed that the Respondent did not exercise that option, however, until 22 April 2002, despite there being a duty of care to ensure such examination occurred in a timely manner soon after the date of claim, that is 21 December 2001.
25. Mr Cook submitted that the Applicant’s attendance at a social gathering on the evening of 21 December 2001 was irrelevant to the claim, and did not indicate that the Applicant was not injured at the time. He urged the Tribunal to accept that the Applicant had worked, notwithstanding the pain, on and after 20 November 2001, “toughing it out until it got too bad”, whereupon he lodged a claim form and sought medical treatment. Mr Cook opined that muscle soreness can cause incapacity.
26. Mr Cook submitted that the report of Mr Kwok (T20) provided evidence of the Applicant’s injury, and any claim that the injury was fabricated was contrary to the medical facts.
the respondent
27. Mr Johnson, for the Respondent, submitted that the Tribunal can only review a reviewable decision; Comcare v Burton (1998) 157 ALR 522 and Comcare v Lees (1999) 56 ALD 84. In this matter, he contended, the reviewable decision pertained to an injury claimed to have occurred on 20 November 2001, as a consequence of which incapacity was claimed to have been caused during the period 21 December 2001 to 14 January 2002, with medical treatment costs incurred on certain dates (T20/59), as claimed by the Applicant. Mr Johnson argued, that if the Tribunal could determine, on the balance of probabilities, that the Applicant’s claimed incapacity was not causally related to the claimed incident on 20 November 2001, then the Applicant’s claim must fail.
28. Mr Johnson submitted that the claimed spasms were not referred to in the clinical notes of Dr Lakshmanan. Dr Chase, he contended, considered it highly unlikely that an injury to the Applicant’s right shoulder could cause spasms or sharp pains in the back at the lumbar or mid-scapular level. The Applicant, he observed, had not given any prominence to back problems when being assessed by Dr Chase, but had exaggerated these symptoms in evidence before the Tribunal. For these reasons, Mr Johnson urged the Tribunal to accept that the spasms were not related to the incident claimed on 20 November 2001, if they had occurred at all, or if, as the Applicant alleged, they occurred on 21 December 2001.
29. Mr Johnson observed that the Respondent was under no obligation to seek medical examination under section 57 of the Act, nor did the Respondent’s duty of care extend to requiring medical treatment in the circumstances.
30. Citing significant inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence, Mr Johnson submitted there were substantial issues of credit before the Tribunal. He contended the Applicant’s inconsistent claims regarding the nature and occurrence of his symptoms could not be relied upon, and should be discounted.
31. Mr Johnson urged the Tribunal to accept that the Applicant may have experienced some soreness on 20 November 2001, but submitted that this did not constitute an injury which resulted in incapacity from 21 December 2001. He contended that it was inexplicable that the Applicant was able to cope with his full duties immediately after the claimed incident, but then suddenly was not able to cope or perform his duties one month later.
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES AND FINDINGS
32. The Tribunal had to take into account all of the evidence, submissions and case law before it, to make a decision in accordance with the relevant legislation and determine whether the Applicant suffered a compensable injury to his shoulder, or neck on or about 20 November 2001, and whether Mr Nicpon is entitled to payment of compensation for incapacity (section 14 of the Act), and medical treatment costs (section 16 of the Act), during the period 21 November 2001 to 14 January 2002 as claimed.
33. The Tribunal is mindful of the authorities with regard to questions of jurisdiction, and agrees with Mr Johnson’s submission that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to the matters contained within the reviewable decision at T22. (Comcare v Burton (supra) and Comcare v Lees (supra)).
34. The Tribunal was concerned with the consistency of reporting his injury and its effects as given by Mr Nicpon to the Respondent, and before the Tribunal.
35. By way of background, the Tribunal noted from Exhibit R4, Mr Nicpon’s sick leave records, past absences for lower back pain in 1998, on 2 July (back), 14 July (back) 18 September 1998 (back), 26 October 1998 (neck), 8 October 2001 (right shoulder), and 8 July 2002 (right shoulder). The Tribunal noted also absence on sick leave from work for torticollis from 30 September 1999 to 1 October 1999.
36. The Tribunal moved then to consider the evidence and noted the apparent confusion regarding the chronology of events as follows:
(a)The Applicant completed an Incident Report on 28 November 2001,a day after he was “spoken to about his sort rates” (PT16/44). He reported an incident on 20 November 2001 whereby he experienced “MUSCULAR PAIN + SORENESS TO RIGHT SHOULDER + REAR NECK MUSCLES” that was caused “WHILST STANDING AND HOLDING AND SLOTTING MAIL OF V/SORT FRAMES CONTINUIOS (sic) STRETCHING + ELEVATION OF ARM MUSCLES + TWISTING AND TURNING OF BODY” (T15).
(b)PT16/46 was a report of Daniel Ward dated 8 January 2002, who stated therein that Mr Nicpon spoke to him about a “sore shoulder and neck” on approximately 5 November 2001.
(c)There was a medical certificate of Dr Lakshmanan dated 21 December 2001 which gave the date of injury as 20 November 2001 and the onset of the complaint as 28 November 2001. The medical certificate at PT17/51 stated as follows: “muscular pain cervical spine & back due to sorting mail”. There was no mention of a shoulder complaint, and Mr Nicpon stated that he first attended upon Dr Lakshmanan on 28 November 2001.
(d)On 28 November 2001 the Applicant attended Dr Lakshmanan who noted “Pain R. Shoulder” and prescribed “Vioxx 25” (Exhibit R3).
(e)The evidence before the Tribunal indicated that Dr Lakshmanan did not certify the Applicant unfit to perform his duties as a result of the symptoms he reported on 28 November 2001 (Exhibit R3), and the Tribunal so finds.
(f)On 30 November 2001 the Applicant attended Dr Lakshmanan who noted “Stress at work. One week off” (Exhibit R3);
(g)On 3 January 2002 the Applicant was certified unfit to perform his duties until 14 January 2002 by Dr Lakshmanan as a consequence of “muscular pain CERVICAL SPINE & Back” (T17/52), with no mention of any shoulder pain. There was no reference to any related consultation in Dr Lakshmanan’s clinical records (Exhibit R3).
(h)The Tribunal noted that Mr P Kwok, physiotherapist, stated on 14 January 2002 (PT20/58), that Mr Nicpon had seven sessions of physiotherapy between 3 January and 16 January 2002 as a result of his complaints of aching pain over his right shoulder, and neck stiffness.
(i)On 3 January 2002, (PT16/40), Mr Nicpon authorised that his doctors release information regarding his “Muscula (sic) pain spine & back.” There was no mention of either shoulder.
37. The Tribunal noted that in his oral evidence Mr Nicpon said that he first experienced soreness in his right shoulder and back on 14 November 2001 while performing his duties sorting Open Road magazines. The Tribunal was also mindful of the report of Daniel Ward dated 8 January 2002, (PT16/46), in which he stated that Mr Nicpon spoke to him about a “sore shoulder and neck - approx 5 November 2001”.
38. Mr Nicpon’s evidence was that he consulted Dr Lakshmanan on 28 November 2001. There was no medical certificate before the Tribunal in relation to that attendance. Mr Nicpon also completed an Incident Report on that day, a day after he had been spoken to about his sort rates. The Tribunal was mindful that Mr Nicpon was also to undergo a performance review on 24 December 2001 when he went off work for three weeks on 21 December 2001, and attended a party on the evening of 21 December 2001. The Tribunal considered it likely that the criticism of Mr Nicpon’s sorting rates was an impetus for him to go off work.
39. The Tribunal was concerned that it had no medical notes pertaining to a consultation by Dr Lakshmanan when he issued a medical certificate on 21 December 2001 certifying Mr Nicpon unfit to perform his duties as a consequence of “muscular pain CERVICAL SPINE & Back” (T17/51).
40. Dr Chase stated that it was “difficult to state with certainty whether he had any symptoms on 20 November 2001. It is therefore difficult to state with certainty that he was fit to perform his usual duties as a Postal Delivery Officer.... “ (Exhibit R2).
41. The Tribunal finds that the symptoms reported by the Applicant to Dr Lakshmanan on 28 November 2001 were said to have commenced approximately on either 5 November (Daniel Ward PT16/46), or on or about 14 November 2001 (Mr Nicpon sorting Open Road magazines), or on or about 20 November 2001 (the Applicant and Dr Lakshmanan). The reported symptoms did not cause any incapacity for work at that time, and Mr Nicpon did not take time off work at that time. Indeed the symptoms must have been quite mild because Mr Nicpon continued at work until he went off on 21 December 2001, a month later, after a process of performance review had begun, and when he was notified that a performance review would take place on 24 December 2001.
42. The Tribunal was concerned whether the Applicant’s symptoms and consequent incapacity for work, as certified by Dr Lakshmanan on 21 December 2001 and 3 January 2002, to 14 January 2002 were compensable work related injuries. The Applicant contended that the pain he experienced on or about 21 December 2001 was causally related to the soreness he reported on 28 November 2001. Dr Chase’s evidence was that it would be difficult to establish any clinical connection between the reported right shoulder symptoms, and the claimed symptoms in the lumbar and mid-scapular regions of the back.
43. Dr Lakshmanan did not record any clinical connection in his notes between the symptoms reported by the Applicant on 28 November 2001 and 21 December 2001, describing each in significantly different terms (Exhibit R3, Exhibit T51 and T52). In fact the medical certificate dated 21 December 2001(T17/51), which certified Mr Nicpon as unfit for work until 3 January 2002, and the medical certificate dated 3 January 2002 which certified the Applicant as unfit for work until 14 January 2002 both mentioned only cervical spine and back and made no mention of his shoulder. Curiously the medical notes of Dr Lakshmanan dated 28 November 2001 (Exhibit R3) which recorded an attendance by Mr Nicpon to the surgery, recorded pain in the right shoulder. The Tribunal noted also that Dr Lakshmanan certified the Applicant as fit for all pre-injury duties on 15 January 2002 (PT19/56).
44. The Tribunal finds that the symptoms reported by the Applicant in the lumbar and mid-scapular regions of his back on 21 December 2001 were different in location, character, intensity and duration to the symptoms he reported in his “right shoulder and rear neck muscles” on 28 November 2001 (T15), and which he reported as having commenced either on 5 November 2001, 14 November, or 20 November 2001. The Tribunal finds Dr Chase’s observation that it would be highly unlikely for symptoms of pain in the right shoulder to cause subsequent pain in the low to mid-back to be persuasive.
45. Considering all the evidence, the inconsistencies in the evidence as discussed above, and the matters raised in submissions, including the taking of leave in close proximity to performance review, the Tribunal finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the conditions reported by the Applicant on 28 November 2001 (T15) were in no causal way connected with Mr Nicpon’s work, and were not injuries pursuant to section 4 of the Act.
46. This being the case, the Tribunal finds the Respondent is not liable to pay the Applicant compensation for injuries as above mentioned and claimed to have occurred at work, because the injuries which were said to have occurred on or about 20 November 2001 (or 5 November, or 14 November), did not fall within the definition of injury pursuant to section 4 of the Act.. Even if they could have been classed as injuries pursuant to section 4 of the Act, they did they not result in death, incapacity for work or impairment pursuant to section 14 of the Act. Accordingly any claim for medical expenses pursuant to section 16 of the Act in relation to the above claim must also fail.
47. In making these findings, the Tribunal notes that it may not make any findings in relation to Mr Cook’s submissions regarding any incapacity for work arising from the Applicant's claimed symptoms on or about 21 December 2001. (Lees (supra)). These matters are simply not before the Tribunal. The reviewable decision (T22) dealt with the claim made on 28 November 2001 (T15), which related to injuries claimed to have been incurred on or about 20 November 2001, and it was this decision which the Tribunal was reviewing. The Tribunal was not satisfied to the requisite standard that the claim was as stated by Mr Nicpon.
DECISION
48. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirms the decision of a delegate of the Australian Postal Corporation, the Respondent in these proceedings, dated 10 January 2002 which affirmed the decision of a Review Officer of the Respondent on 8 February 2002 to disallow the compensation claim of Mr Edward Nicpon for injuries to his shoulder, neck or back under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
I certify that the 48 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member, Dr P Lynch, Member and Mr S Webb, Member.
Signed: .......................................................................................
AssociateDate of Hearing 21 October 2002
Date of Decision 14 February 2003
Counsel for the Applicant Mr Q Cook
Solicitor for the Applicant Postal Delivery Officers Union
Counsel for the Respondent Mr G Johnson
Solicitor for the Respondent Forners Solicitors
0
2
0