Potepa, Stanislowa v Comcare Australia
[1996] FCA 629
•28 JUNE 1996
CATCHWORDS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - appeal against decision of Adminstrative Appeals Tribunal affirming decision to refuse payment of compensation for alleged injury at work - no point of principle
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1974: s44
No. NG 594 of 1995
STANISLOWA POTEPA -v- COMCARE AUSTRALIA
Moore J
Sydney
28 June 1996
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 594 of 1995
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: STANISLOWA POTEPA
Applicant
AND: COMCARE AUSTRALIA
Respondent
JUDGE: Moore J
PLACE: Sydney
DATE: 28 June 1996
ORDER OF THE COURT
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
That the application is dismissed.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 594 of 1995
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: STANISLOWA POTEPA
Applicant
AND: COMCARE AUSTRALIA
Respondent
JUDGE: Moore J
PLACE: Sydney
DATE: 28 June 1996
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
This is an application under section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 being an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Such an appeal may be brought to this Court on a question of law and does not involve the review of the decision of the Tribunal on its merits. The application filed by the applicant raises, in terms, a number of grounds of appeal. The precise circumstances in which the notice of appeal was drawn could not be explained by the appellant and I remain unclear as to how it was that her case was originally formulated and by whom.
The applicant appears to have only a limited appreciation of the nature of this Court's jurisdiction and the issues that might legitimately be raised in an appeal such as the present. However, the applicant plainly believes that the Tribunal's decision was wrong and it is incumbent upon me to give consideration to the matters raised in the notice of appeal to the extent that it might be thought there is any error of law involved in the decision of the Tribunal.
The history of the matter may briefly be stated. The applicant commenced working at Concord Repatriation Hospital in 1981 and ceased working at the hospital in that year. In 1985 she made application for compensation which was dealt with ultimately by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in a decision published by it on 28 November 1988. The Tribunal formed the view that the applicant was entitled to compensation but for a limited period only.
The Tribunal determined that compensation should be paid for total incapacity for a period of 12 months after the termination of the applicant's employment. That period expired on 8 July 1982. In reaching the conclusion it did, the Tribunal in 1988 indicated that it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the applicant had suffered no organic injury from the work undertaken at the hospital. It did conclude, however, and this provided the basis for the view it formed that some compensation was payable, the applicant had suffered from fatigue symptoms resulting from what was unusual and heavy work for which the applicant was inexperienced and ill equipped.
This remained the position for a period of time after the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However in April 1993 a second application was made by the applicant for compensation said to be payable as a result of the injury she contended she suffered at work in 1981. That second application resulted ultimately in the decision of the Tribunal against which this appeal has been brought. That decision was a decision of Senior Member Dr D.J. Grimes given on 12 July 1995. The decision of the Senior Member involved a review of the medical evidence, both evidence given before the Tribunal originally and more recent medical evidence.
The Tribunal reached a conclusion that the medical evidence since 1988 does not support the assertion that existing symptoms can be causally related to the applicant's work at Concord Hospital and formed the view that the medical evidence supported the view that a functional component predominates now. Its ultimate conclusion was that there was no nexus between the applicant's condition and her employment at the Concord Hospital. As a consequence, it affirmed the decision under review, namely the decision to refuse compensation payments to the applicant as a result of an injury to her right hand and shoulder on and from 8 July 1982.
Mr Godwin has taken me both to the decision of the Tribunal presently under appeal and the earlier decision and has also taken me to the medical evidence. He has done so with a view to supporting the contention of the respondent that there is no error of law manifest in the decision of the Tribunal of 12 July 1995 and in doing so had exposed the decision making processes of the Tribunal for scrutiny by this Court. I am not satisfied that the Tribunal in its recent decision of 12 July 1995 committed any error of law. Accordingly, the appeal by the appellant should be dismissed.
Having said that, however, I should make it plain that the appellant brought these proceedings in the belief, it would seem, that this Court has jurisdiction to consider the application for compensation on its merits. As I have endeavoured to explain, both in these reasons and during the course of the hearing, that is not the function of this Court. The applicant, as I understand the position, and this appears to have been conceded by Mr Godwin on behalf of the respondent, is able to make further application for compensation to Comcare though it must be appreciated by her that such an application may well suffer the same fate as earlier applications unless there is some additional material available to her that might tend to indicate the earlier consideration of her applications was wrong.
I order that the application is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.
I certify that this and the preceding four (4) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Moore.
Associate: ........ ........ ......
Dated: 28 June 1996
APPEARANCES
Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Godwin
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms H Dejean,
Australian Government Solicitor
Dates of Hearing: 28 June 1996 and
17 April 1996
0
0
0