Risson and Comcare

Case [2003] AATA 656

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal
 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 656

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No V01/1497

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION )
Re RONALD GILBERT RISSON

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mrs Joan Dwyer,     Senior Member
Mr C. Ermert,          Member

Date11 July 2003

PlaceMelbourne

Decision

1. The notice given to Comcare on 1 June 2000 is taken to have been given under s 53 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”).

2.     The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Mr Risson’s application for review of the reviewable decision of 17 October 2001 which affirmed a determination rejecting his claim for compensation for post traumatic stress disorder.

(Sgd)  Joan Dwyer

Senior Member

COMPENSATION – jurisdiction hearing – whether notice of injury given as required by s 53 of the Act – whether claim can be notice – meaning of the period “as soon as practicable after the employee becomes aware of the injury” – mistake in lodging claim under other legislation – whether ignorance, mistake or other reasonable cause need only cover the period of failure to give notice specified in s 53(1) of the Act – whether Murray v Baxter applicable notwithstanding differences in terminology between different legislation – notice taken to be given under s 53 – Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear application

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879

Pacific Manning Company Pty Ltd v Barton [2003] FCA 498

Murray v Baxter (1914) 18 CLR 622

Comcare Australia v McGuire (1996) 68 FCR 329

Commonwealth v Connors (1989) 86 ALR 247

Re Willis and Australian Telecommunications Commission (1989) 19 ALD 665

Commonwealth of Australia v Whillock (1983) 48 ALR 433

Commonwealth v Pisani (1987) 12 ALD 299

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4 and 53

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971

Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930

REASONS FOR DECISION

11 July 2003 Mrs Joan Dwyer,   Senior Member
Mr C. Ermert,        Member          

1.      This was a hearing as to jurisdiction.  It arose in respect of an application for review of a reviewable decision made under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) on 17 October 2001. That reviewable decision affirmed a primary determination made 30 November 2000, rejecting Mr Risson’s claim, made 1 June 2000, for compensation under the Act in respect of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

2. At the hearing Mr Wicks of Counsel appeared for the applicant. Ms McMahon of Counsel appeared for the respondent. The Tribunal had before it the documents (“the T documents”) lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“the AAT Act”), and also the exhibits tendered during the hearing. Mr Risson gave evidence.

3.      The claim lodged on 1 June 2000 (T11 pp57-58) sought compensation for PTSD and also for “asbestos/testicle injury, right shoulder/malignant skin cancer”..  The primary and reviewable decisions seem to refer only to the PTSD aspect of the claim.  Counsel for the parties agreed that the only condition the subject…

Continue reading Risson and Comcare

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Risson and Comcare [2003] AATA 656
Case
[2003] AATA 656
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the applicant, Mr. Risson, sought review of a decision made by Comcare, the respondent, which affirmed a rejection of his claim for compensation related to post-traumatic stress disorder. The case was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), with the Tribunal tasked with determining whether it had the authority to hear the application and, if so, whether it should exercise its discretion to review the decision in question.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the notice provided to Comcare on 1 June 2000 was valid under section 53 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, and whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to review the decision made by Comcare on 17 October 2001. The applicant argued that the notice was valid and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the decision. Comcare contended that the notice was invalid and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal determined that the notice given to Comcare was valid under section 53 of the Act, despite the fact that it was not explicitly stated as being issued under that section. The Tribunal found that the substance of the notice complied with the requirements of the Act and that the failure to explicitly reference the section did not invalidate it. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to review the decision of 17 October 2001, as the decision was a reviewable decision under the Act. The Tribunal found that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to review the decision and that the application should proceed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal took the notice to have been given under section 53 of the Act and affirmed its jurisdiction to review the decision of 17 October 2001. The Tribunal’s decision allows the review process to move forward, providing Mr. Risson with the opportunity to challenge the rejection of his claim for compensation related to post-traumatic stress disorder.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The notice given to Comcare on 1 June 2000 is taken to have been given under s 53 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”).

2. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Mr Risson’s application for review of the reviewable decision of 17 October 2001 which affirmed a determination rejecting his claim for compensation for post traumatic stress disorder.

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.