Patterson and Comcare

[2005] AATA 1098

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1098

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )           N2004/1093; N2004/1378;

)           N2005/1323

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		STEVEN PATTERSON

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal: Senior Member M D Allen
Dr J D Campbell, Member

Date:4 November 2005

Place:Sydney

Decision:

1. In matter N2004/1093 the decision under review is AFFIRMED.

2. In matter N2004/1378 the decision under review is SET ASIDE and this matter remitted to the Respondent with the direction that further investigations be undertaken to ascertain the Applicant’s ability to undertake employment, and the amount per week that he would be able to earn in a suitable employment.

3. In matter N2005/1323 the decision under review is AFFIRMED.

4. This matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed in order that the parties may make submissions as to costs. 

(Sgd)  M D Allen

..............................................

Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - Claim for increase in permanent Impairment from Post Q Fever Syndrome together with claim for incapacity to work and medical expenses – whether there has been a change in the underlying patho-physiological condition as opposed to an exacerbation of the condition – reviewable decisions in relation to permanent impairment and medical expenses affirmed – decision in relation to incapacity set aside and remitted to the Respondent to ascertain the Applicant’s ability to undertake employment.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 sections 14, 16, 19 and 24

Comcare v Maida (2002) 36 AAR 69

REASONS FOR DECISION

4 November 2005 Senior Member M D Allen
Dr J D Campbell, Member

1.      These proceedings concerned three applications for review lodged by the Applicant.

2.      Matter No N2004/1093 sought review of a reviewable decision made the 29^th day of June 2004 affirming a prior determination that the Applicant was not suffering any permanent impairment from the condition described as “Post Q Fever Syndrome”.   

3.      Matter No N2004/1378 sought review of a reviewable decision made the 19^th day of October 2004 affirming a prior determination that the Applicant was not entitled to payment for incapacity for work pursuant to s 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the SRC Act”).

4.      Matter No N2005/1323 sought review of a reviewable decision made the 11^th day of October 2005 affirming a prior determination that the Applicant was not entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses being payments for psychological counselling, pursuant to s 16 of the SRC Act.

5. At the outset we have some difficulty in ascertaining the effect of the decision and reviewable decision in matter No N2004/1093. Those decisions purport to determine that the Applicant’s degree of permanent impairment from the claimed Post Q Fever Syndrome is 0% and hence the Applicant is not entitled to any payment for permanent impairment pursuant to ss 24(7) of the SRC Act.

6. As pointed out in document T76 in the documents prepared for the Tribunal pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals  Tribunal Act…