Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 677
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2002/1151
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re Slavica Panov Applicant
And
TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Professor Tania Sourdin, Member Date of Hearing 19 May 2003
Date of Decision 18 July 2003
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution therefor, decides that:
1. The Respondent is liable under section 16(1) of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”) to pay compensation to the Applicant, being the cost of all reasonable “medical treatment” (as defined in section 4(1) of the Act) obtained by the Applicant in relation to the physical injury to her neck from 17 March 2001 to 17 March 2003, subject to proof being provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Respondent that the cost of such medical treatment has been incurred by the Applicant.[Sgd] Prof T Sourdin, Member
CATCHWORDS
WORKERS COMPENSATION – liability – soft tissue neck injury - whether applicant suffering from a compensable or continuing injury – decision set aside
LEGISLATION
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 sections 14 and 16.
CASE LAW
Health Insurance Commission v Van Reesch (1996) 45 ALD 302
REASONS FOR DECISION
18 July 2003 Professor T Sourdin, Member 1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 26 July 2002 made by GIO Australia (“the Insurer”) the insurer of Telstra Corporation Limited (“the Respondent”). This decision affirmed an earlier decision of the Insurer dated 5 November 2001 which determined that Telstra was not liable to pay compensation to Ms Slavica Panov (“the Applicant”) in respect of neck and back strain.
2. This matter was heard before the Tribunal on 19 May 2003. In addition to the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“the T documents”), the Tribunal had before it the following exhibits:
Exhibit
Description
Date
A1
Medical report of Dr Vago
7 February 2003
A2
Sydney Spinal Care tax invoice statements relating to chiropractic treatment
10 January 2003
A3
Five tax invoices from Blue Cross Medical Centre relating to acupuncture treatment
9 - 13 April 2002
R1
Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions
8 November 2002
R2
Respondent’s Statement of Issues
18 September 2002
R3
Report of Dr Perrett
15 October 2002
R4
Report of Dr Perrett
26 February 2003
R5
Dr Vago clinical notes
Various dates
R6
X – ray report of Dr McDonald
25 May 1987
R7
Report of Dr R Goreman
2 June 1990
R8
Sydney Spinal Care notes
29 June 2002
R9
Fairfield Hospital Emergency Department notes and clinical record
30 March 2002
3. The Applicant appeared unrepresented at the hearing. Mr Brendan Kelly, counsel appeared for the respondent. Issues about the Applicant’s representation were raised with the Applicant and both the Respondent and Applicant concurred that this issue had been raised in three pre-hearing conferences. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Applicant.
LEGISLATION
4. The relevant legislation in…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Panov and Telstra Corporation Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2003] AATA 677
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the AAT was whether Ms Panov's neck injury qualified as a compensable injury under the Act. Additionally, the tribunal needed to decide if the injury was a continuing one, which would entitle her to compensation for the specified medical treatment costs. The tribunal's analysis focused on the medical evidence presented and the definition of "medical treatment" as outlined in section 4(1) of the Act. The tribunal had to ensure that the costs claimed were reasonable and directly related to the injury sustained during her employment.
The AAT concluded that the decision under review should be set aside and replaced with a decision that the respondent was liable to pay compensation to the applicant for the cost of all reasonable medical treatment obtained by her in relation to the physical injury to her neck from the specified dates. The tribunal was satisfied that the injury met the criteria of a compensable and continuing injury under the Act, and thus, the respondent's liability to compensate was affirmed. The tribunal's decision mandated that the respondent would need to provide proof of the incurred costs to the reasonable satisfaction of the respondent.
The final orders of the tribunal specified that Telstra Corporation Ltd must pay compensation for the cost of all reasonable medical treatment obtained by Ms Panov from 17 March 2001 to 17 March 2003, subject to the submission of proof of these costs. This decision underscores the importance of substantiating claims with adequate evidence to satisfy the criteria set out in the Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution therefor, decides that:
1. The Respondent is liable under section 16(1) of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”) to pay compensation to the Applicant, being the cost of all reasonable “medical treatment” (as defined in section 4(1) of the Act) obtained by the Applicant in relation to the physical injury to her neck from 17 March 2001 to 17 March 2003, subject to proof being provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Respondent that the cost of such medical treatment has been incurred by the Applicant.
[Sgd] Prof T Sourdin, Member
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.