Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 66
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No V 200500243, V 200500244, ) V 200600489
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re STANLEY RANASINGHE Applicant
And
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr Egon Fice, Member Date24 January 2008
PlaceMelbourne
Decision 1. The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 9 February 2005, dealing with the rehabilitation program (dated 15 November 2004) and decides that it was not a valid determination pursuant to s37(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
2. The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 9 February 2005 dealing with Mr Ranasinghe’s capacity to increase working hours and decides that Mr Ranasinghe’s capacity for work is limited to 4 hours per day for 5 days until the date that Dr Mortimer determined he should further limit his work to 3 days per week.
3. The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 30 May 2006 and decides that Mr Ranasinghe should be paid compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss.
4. Mr Ranasighe’s costs of these applications should be paid by Australia Post in an amount agreed by the parties or in the event that the parties cannot agree, as taxed by the Tribunal.
(sgd) Egon Fice
Member
COMPENSATION - Aggravation of pre-existing osteoarthritis – Chronic regional pain syndrome – impact of chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression – Return to work program – Failure to have regard to employee’s attitude to return to work program – Failure to comply with Rehabilitation Guidelines - capacity to work – Permanent impairment –Non-economic loss
Department of Defence v Fox (1997) 24 AAR 171
McGuinness v Comcare [2007] FMCA 1486
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 s19, s24, s27, s37, s41, s62
REASONS FOR DECISION
24 January 2008 Mr Egon Fice, Member 1. The three matters before me on this application are the consequence of an injury suffered by Mr Stanley Ranasinghe at his workplace in September 2001 and the decisions made by the Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post), his employer. The first decision for review, dated 9 February 2005, arises from reconsideration of a determination made on 16 November 2004 which assessed Mr Ranasinghe as capable of undertaking a return to work program between November 2004 and January 2005, gradually increasing his hours of work from four per day to full time. The second decision for review, also dated 9 February 2005, affirmed a determination dated 25 November 2004. That determination deemed Mr Ranasinghe able to increase his hours of work to five hours per day from 15 November 2004; six hours per day from 13 December 2004; and full time from 10 January 2005. His failure to comply with the return to work program resulted in a reduction of Mr Ranasinghe’s compensation payments in accordance with s19(4) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act). The third decision for review, made on 30 May 2006, is a reconsideration of a determination…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ranasinghe 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2008] AATA 66
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the Tribunal needed to address were whether the decisions made by the respondent concerning the applicant's rehabilitation program and work capacity were valid and whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss. The Tribunal was required to interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in determining the validity of these decisions. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider medical evidence and expert opinions to ascertain the applicant's actual work capacity and the extent of his impairment.
In reaching its decision, the Tribunal carefully examined the evidence and the statutory framework governing the matter. It found that the decision regarding the rehabilitation program was not a valid determination under the Act, as it did not comply with the necessary procedural requirements. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's capacity for work was limited, aligning with the medical advice provided. The Tribunal also determined that the applicant was entitled to compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss, as the evidence supported these claims. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the respondent's decisions and made its own determinations, ordering the respondent to pay the applicant's costs as specified.
The Tribunal's orders included setting aside the respondent's decisions on the rehabilitation program and work capacity, determining the applicant's work capacity, and awarding compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss. The Tribunal also mandated that the respondent cover the applicant's costs, either through an agreement between the parties or, if necessary, as determined by the Tribunal. This ruling underscored the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and the need for proper medical assessments in such cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 9 February 2005, dealing with the rehabilitation program (dated 15 November 2004) and decides that it was not a valid determination pursuant to s37(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
2. The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 9 February 2005 dealing with Mr Ranasinghe’s capacity to increase working hours and decides that Mr Ranasinghe’s capacity for work is limited to 4 hours per day for 5 days until the date that Dr Mortimer determined he should further limit his work to 3 days per week.
3. The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 30 May 2006 and decides that Mr Ranasinghe should be paid compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss.
4. Mr Ranasighe’s costs of these applications should be paid by Australia Post in an amount agreed by the parties or in the event that the parties cannot agree, as taxed by the Tribunal.
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.