Re Michael Corrigan and Comcare - [2011] AATA 299

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 299
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2010/1536

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re MICHAEL CORRIGAN

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member
Date6 May 2011
PlaceCanberra

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
.......................[sgd].......................
Mr S. Webb, Member

CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION - shoulder and upper limb injury - incapacity and medical expenses claim - credit - temporary aggravation of previously existing condition - no present liability in relation to injury – decision affirmed
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4, 5A, 5B, 14, 16, 19
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v GSF Australia Pty Ltd [2005] 221 CLR 568
Commonwealth of Australia v Beattie (1981) 35 ALR 369
Federal Broom Company Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Fitzgerald v Penn (1954) 91 CLR 268
Ilsley v Wattyl Australia Pty Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 1
Johnston v Commonwealth [1982] 150 CLR 331
Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] 171 CLR 506
Martin v Australian Postal Corporation [1999] FCA 655
McAuliffe v Comcare [2002] FCA 769
Mellor v Australian Postal Corporation [2009] FCA 504
Salisbury v Australian Iron and Steel Ltd (1943) 44 SR (NSW) 157
REASONS FOR DECISION

6 May 2011 Mr S. Webb, Member

1.      Michael Corrigan made a compensation claim in respect of an upper right limb and right shoulder injury while undertaking a short-term contract of employment with the Department of Health and Ageing (the Department). The injury was said to be a repetitive strain injury. Comcare accepted the claim and Mr Corrigan was paid compensation. Later, Comcare decided that he was no longer entitled to compensation for incapacity and medical treatment expenses. This decision was affirmed on reconsideration. Mr Corrigan applied for review.
2. The issues for determination are Mr Corrigan’s entitlements under sections 16 and 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act), if any, from 7 October 2009. For that purpose it is necessary to determine whether or not Mr Corrigan’s incapacity for work is as a result of his accepted right shoulder and upper limb injury and whether he has obtained or presently requires medical treatment in relation to that injury.
3.      The following background facts are established on the balance of probabilities by the present materials and evidence.
(a)Mr Corrigan commenced a fixed-term contract of employment with the Department on 10 June 2008. He was engaged to undertake clerical duties in relation to procurement processes.
(b)On 20 and 27 June 2008 he requested a workstation assessment, but a workstation assessment was not undertaken until 3 October 2008[1].
[1] T5; T7 refers.
(c)On or about 12 September 2008 Mr Corrigan’s contract was extended[2].
[2] T17a folio 54 and T4 folio 13 refer.
(d)On 29 September 2008 Mr Corrigan complained of right arm, shoulder, neck and back pain in an email to his supervisor at work, Maynard Gold[3].
[3] See Exhibit…

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.

Continue reading Re Michael Corrigan and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Re Michael Corrigan and Comcare [2011] AATA 299
Case: [2011] AATA 299
Decision Date: 6 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Michael Corrigan and Comcare, the Federal Circuit Court was tasked with reviewing a decision regarding a claim for compensation related to a shoulder and upper limb injury sustained by Michael Corrigan. Corrigan sought compensation for incapacity and medical expenses arising from an incident that exacerbated a pre-existing condition. Comcare, the respondent, had denied liability, contending that there was no present liability in relation to the injury. Corrigan appealed the decision, leading to this review by the court.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Comcare had a present liability for the exacerbation of Corrigan's pre-existing condition and the appropriate amount of credit to be given for the temporary aggravation of that condition. The court had to determine whether the exacerbation of Corrigan's condition was a result of the incident in question and whether Comcare should bear the responsibility for the additional incapacity and medical expenses.

The court affirmed the original decision, holding that Comcare had no present liability in relation to the injury. The court reasoned that the exacerbation of Corrigan's pre-existing condition was not attributable to the incident and, therefore, Comcare was not liable for the additional incapacity and medical expenses. Furthermore, the court found that the credit for the temporary aggravation of the condition was appropriately considered in the original decision. The findings were based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles governing compensation claims.

The decision under review is affirmed, with no liability attributed to Comcare for the injury in question. Corrigan's appeal is dismissed, and the original decision stands as affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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		MICHAEL CORRIGAN