Rosillo and Telstra Corporation Ltd

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 582

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL              )

) N2001/1742

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		ANTONIO ROSILLO

Applicant

And TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms G Ettinger - Senior Member
Dr M E C Thorpe - Member

Date              23 June 2003

PlaceSydney

Decision

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirms the decision of Telstra of 28 August 2001 which was affirmed by the decision of 26 October 2001 to deny liability for compensation pursuant to section 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in respect of “strain lower lumbar region” on and from 28 August 2001.

Costs: No costs may be awarded in this matter pursuant to section 67(8) of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

Ms G Ettinger 
  Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

Compensation – whether injury further compensable - decision affirmed

LEGISLATION

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 14

CASE LAW

Lees v Comcare and Another: Comcare v Mathews and Others (1999) 56 ALD 84

Re Carson and Telstra Corporation (2001) 33 AAR 351

Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Davis (1991) 14 AAR 99
Australian Telecommunications Commission and Glennie (1982) 5 ALN N56B
Re Tiranti-Valenti and Comcare (1996/7) 45 ALD 478
Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn [2003] FCA 318

Plumb v Comcare (1992) 39 FCR 236

REASONS FOR DECISION

23 June 2003

  Ms G Ettinger - Senior Member

             Dr M E C Thorpe - Member

1. The decision under review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) was the decision of the Respondent, Telstra Corporation Ltd (“Telstra”), dated 26 October 2001, (T114) which affirmed the decision of Telstra of 28 August 2001 (T109) to find that compensation for Mr Antonio Rosillo in respect of “strain lower lumbar region” was ceased pursuant to section 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, on and from 28 August 2001.

1. The Applicant, Mr Rosillo, was represented by Mr L Grey of counsel instructed by Carrol & O’Dea Solicitors, and the Respondent, Telstra Corporation Ltd, by Mr N Chen of counsel, instructed by Henry Davis York.

ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

1. The Tribunal had to decide whether Mr Antonio Rosillo was entitled to compensation pursuant to section 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”), for “strain lower lumbar region” sustained at work in 1991 and 1993, as claimed in T4, dated 11 July 1991, and T21 dated 6 April 1993

2. The Tribunal noted that the claims before it were not for medical expenses pursuant to section 16 of the Act, neither for loss of wages pursuant to section 19 of the Act.

3. The Tribunal noted further that Mr Rosillo’s claim for permanent impairment had been recognised, and assessed at 10%, in a consent decision dated 8 October 1999 (T99).

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

1. The legislation relevant to this matter is the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, in particular sections 4 and 14.

2. Section 4 of the Act defines “disease” and “injury” and follows as relevant:

   “4.  (1)  In this…