Raman and Comcare (Compensation) - [2016] AATA 122

Raman and Comcare (Compensation) [2016] AATA 122 (2 March 2016)

Division

GENERAL DIVISION

File Number

2014/5480

Re

Zarif Raman

APPLICANT

And

Comcare

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal
Regina Perton, Member

Date 2 March 2016

Place Melbourne
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[sgd]........................................................................
Regina Perton, Member
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – whether shoulder condition arose out of or in the course of employment – whether condition aggravated by employment – decision affirmed.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 5A, 5B, 14, 53
REASONS FOR DECISION
Regina Perton, Member
2 March 2016

Zarif Raman has worked for the CSIRO in personal assistant, receptionist and administrative roles, commencing in 1996. Mrs Raman has worked at different work sites for the CSIRO and had some breaks from doing so because particular programs ended. Mrs Raman was made redundant at the end of 1999 due to a restructure at the CSIRO and she then worked for other companies. The CSIRO rehired Mrs Raman in March 2006 as a personal assistant. About a year and a half later, due to another restructure, her position came to an end. Mrs Raman successfully applied for another position at the CSIRO as a part-time receptionist working five half days. Later she was given the opportunity to work for a further 14 hours per week for another program as an administrative assistant.
In October 1998 Mrs Raman was injured in a motor vehicle accident on her way home from the CSIRO. She suffered from whiplash when her car was hit from behind. At that time, accidents on a worker’s regular journey to or from work were covered by workers compensation insurance rather than transport accident provisions. That is no longer the case. Comcare reimbursed Mrs Raman’s medical expenses until November 1998.
On 1 April 2014 Mrs Raman lodged a claim for compensation for a left shoulder condition which she stated also affected her neck and left arm. Mrs Raman stated that her injury was caused by lifting hundreds of 10 kilogram boxes containing printed reports between November 2011 and late 2013.
Comcare’s delegate rejected Mrs Raman’s claim on 17 May 2014 on the basis that the claimed condition was not contributed to, to a significant degree, by her employment. Mrs Raman applied for review of that decision. The review delegate was also not satisfied that there was a significant contribution from employment to the left shoulder condition, finding that it was attributable to degeneration.
On 22 October 2014 Mrs Raman made an application for review to this Tribunal.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Section 14(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act), as it was at the relevant date, provides:
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.
...
Section 5A of the Act states:
Definition of injury
(1) In this Act:
injury means:
(a) a disease suffered by…

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 Raman and Comcare (Compensation) 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: [2016] AATA 122
Decision Date: 2 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mrs Raman lodged a claim against Comcare, the Commonwealth's workers' compensation insurer, seeking compensation for a shoulder condition that she alleged arose from her employment. The dispute was heard and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mrs Raman's shoulder condition was significantly contributed to by her employment, and thus compensable under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The Tribunal needed to assess the medical evidence and determine the extent to which her employment may have caused or exacerbated her condition.

The Tribunal carefully reviewed the medical evidence provided, including the reports from various specialists. It found that while Mrs Raman did have a shoulder condition, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that her employment was a significant contributing factor. The Tribunal emphasised that to be compensable, the condition must be shown to have been significantly caused by the employment, and not merely aggravated by it. After considering all the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that Mrs Raman's shoulder condition did not meet the criteria for compensation under the Act.

As a result of this finding, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of Comcare to reject Mrs Raman's claim for compensation. The Tribunal upheld the administrative decision that her shoulder condition was not compensable under the legislation. This decision is now final and binding, barring any further appeal or review.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal is unable to find that Mrs Raman’s shoulder condition was significantly contributed to by her employment. That condition is therefore not compensable under the Act.DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Division	GENERAL DIVISION
File Number	2014/5480
Re	Zarif Raman
APPLICANT
And	Comcare
RESPONDENT

Tribunal	Regina Perton, Member
Date	2 March 2016
Place	Melbourne