Pepperell and Australian Postal Corporation - [2004] AATA 11

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 11
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2002/751

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re SUSAN PEPPERELL

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr O Rinaudo, Member
Date9 January 2004
PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.........(Sgd) O Rinaudo.......
Member

Evidence
4.      Mrs Pepperell gave evidence at the hearing. In addition evidence was heard from Drs Coroneos, Nutting, Reid, Goode and Jackson.
5.      Documentary evidence was also tendered as follows:
§ Exhibit 1   T documents
§ Exhibit 2   Report of Dr Gilpin dated 30 July 2002
§ Exhibit 3   Report of Dr Reid dated 23 November 2001
§ Exhibit 4   Report of Dr Goode dated 30 August 2001
§ Exhibit 5   Handwritten letter of Dr Howard Arbuthnot

History
6.      Mrs Pepperell injured herself during her employment as a postal transport officer on 29 August 2001 when she tripped and fell into the back on her delivery van. In respect of the accident Mrs Pepperell’s evidence was that, after the fall, she completed the run then reported that she had had a fall. She filled out the necessary claim form and was treated at Sunnybank Hospital with pain killing tablets for “general all over pain at that time – like I had played a hard game of football”.
7.      Liability was accepted for left shoulder, elbow, neck and lower back pain.
Medical History
8.      Whilst the circumstances leading to her injury at work are able to be described in very short compass, her accident set off what can only be described as an extraordinary history of medical examination and intervention. The extent of this medical history can be seen by the summary following. It should be noted that Mrs Pepperell has seen many other doctors besides the ones listed here. However, the ones listed highlight the most important issues which the Tribunal has to consider. Mrs Pepperell provided a copy of her diary in which she noted:
“Wednesday – August 29^th approx 6.30pm fell into side door of van whilst throwing mail towards back. Struck left elbow on door pillar. Door closed on right hip. Fell forwards onto mail bags. Continued run. Reported incident on return to Underwood and was taken to Mater Hospital – the wait was to be too long so I was then taken to Sunnybank Hospital. The Doctor gave me a Brufen and said it was too early to do X-rays.”

There is a list of 85 attendances at various doctors, physiotherapists and medical examinations such as ultrasound, MRI scan and surgery. This is between the dates of 30 August 2001 and 7 August 2002.
Dr Coroneos, Consultant Neurosurgeon
9. Dr Coroneos reported on 29 November 2001 (T67, folios 84/90) and on 24 April 2002 (T118, folios 160/168). In his evidence Dr Coroneos referred to page 5 of his report (T67, folio 88) and noted that Mrs Pepperell had undergone a cervical spine x-ray on 20 September 2001 which showed

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pepperell and Australian Postal Corporation 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] AATA 11
Decision Date: 9 January 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was a dispute between the Commonwealth and Mr Pepperell regarding the liability for workers' compensation in the context of a relatively minor workplace injury. Mr Pepperell, an employee of the Australian Postal Corporation, suffered injuries to his back, neck, and shoulder after a fall at work. The central issue for the tribunal was to determine the date at which the Commonwealth's liability for Mr Pepperell's conditions should cease. This involved examining the causation and diagnosis of the injuries, and assessing the medical evidence presented, which suggested that there was no organic basis for the continuing pain experienced by Mr Pepperell. The tribunal had to decide whether the pain syndrome was a direct result of the workplace injury, and if so, up to what point the Commonwealth remained liable for compensation.

The tribunal examined the relevant legislation, the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, alongside relevant case law, including Commonwealth v Beattie, Tippett v Australia Postal Corporation, Re Howard and Australian Postal Corporation, Re Daaboul and Comcare, Re Roe and Comcare, and Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission. The tribunal had to consider the nature of the injury and the circumstances surrounding it, as well as the medical evidence presented by both parties. The tribunal also considered the fact that Mr Pepperell's pain ceased following surgery, which was a significant factor in determining the cessation of the Commonwealth's liability.

After careful consideration of the evidence and applicable legal principles, the tribunal found that the decision under review was correct. The tribunal affirmed that the Commonwealth's liability for Mr Pepperell's conditions ceased when his pain had completely resolved following surgery. The tribunal determined that there was no organic basis for the continuing pain experienced by Mr Pepperell and that his pain syndrome was not a direct result of the workplace injury. The tribunal concluded that the decision to cease liability for Mr Pepperell's conditions at the point when his pain had ceased was in accordance with the law and the evidence presented.

The tribunal affirmed the decision under review, and no further appeal is possible. The Commonwealth's liability for Mr Pepperell's conditions is deemed to have ceased at the point when his pain had completely resolved following surgery. The tribunal's decision is based on a thorough examination of the evidence and applicable legal principles, and it is consistent with the relevant case law and legislation.

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		SUSAN PEPPERELL