RVCQ and Comcare (Compensation)

[2024] AATA 88

RVCQ and Comcare (Compensation) [2024] AATA 88 (23 January 2024)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2022/5245

Re:RVCQ

APPLICANT

AndComcare

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member George

Date:23 January 2024

Place:Adelaide

Pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the Reviewable Decision of the Respondent dated 29 April 2022.

.................[Sgnd]...................

Senior Member George

CATCHWORDS

WORKERS COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employee – exposure to high levels of mould – employer accommodation – whether applicant’s chronic inflammatory response syndrome is a recognised medical condition – whether applicant’s employment significantly contributed to the applicant’s claimed condition – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Return to Work Regulations 1986 (NT)

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)

CASES

Conway; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 1552

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member George

23 January 2024

1. RVCQ (“the Applicant”) is employed as an Anthropologist by Anindilyakwa Land Council (“ALC”). She commenced employment with ALC on 15 February 2021 and works remotely on Groote Eylandt in the Northern Territory. As part of her employment, ALC provide her with accommodation. This accommodation has been subject to mould.

2. On 12 November 2021, the Applicant submitted a claim for workers’ compensation for “ongoing health complications due to exposure to high levels of mould in my previous place of residence.”[1] She did so under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Act”). On 18 February 2022, the Respondent approved and claimed:

   (a)expenses for general practitioner consultations from 30 April to 10 June 2021; and

   (b)compensation for time off work from 4-7 May 2021.

   [1] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, T3, Workers’ Compensation Claim, pages 10-18.

3. The Respondent otherwise denied liability to pay compensation for Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (“CIRS”) and an aggravation of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (“IBS”).[2]

   [2] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, T20, Determination Letter, pages 134-138.

4. The Applicant requested a reconsideration of the February decision.[3] On 29 April 2022, the Respondent made the Reviewable Decision which:

   (a)varied the determination to accept liability for allergic reaction to mould from 29 April to 10 June 2021, and aggravation of IBS from 30 April to 10 June 2021; and

   (b)affirmed the decision in respect of CIRS.[4]

   [3] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, T21, Reconsideration Request, pages 139-147.

   [4] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, T22, Reconsideration Letter, pages 148-154.

5. The Applicant has sought a review of the Reviewable Decision.[5] The issues for the Tribunal to now determine are whether:

   (a)the condition of CIRS is real and associated with the Applicant’s case;

   (b)the Applicant should be entitled to compensation notwithstanding her inability to provide medical certificates for time off work due to ill health from a health professional who meets the Respondent’s requirements; and

   (c)the period for which the Applicant suffered an aggravation of her pre-existing or underlying health condition and for which the Respondent has already admitted liability extended beyond the closing date of 10 June 2021.

   [5] Exhibit R1, T-Documents, Application for Review of Decision, pages 1-7.

6. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has determined the answers to all of these questions to be in the negative. Accordingly, the reviewable decision is affirmed.

   LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

7. It is uncontroversial that the Applicant is an employee within the meaning of s 5(1)(a) of the Act.

8. Section 14 of the Act provides that Comcare is liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.

9. Injury is defined in s 5A(1) of the Act as:

   (a)       a disease suffered by an employee; or

   (b)       an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment; or

   (c)       an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment.

10. Disease is defined in s 5B of the Act as an ailment suffered by an employee, or an aggravation of such an ailment that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee's employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee.

    SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS

    Pre-employment

11. The Applicant has suffered numerous medical conditions, including sinonasal issues dating back approximately 20 years.[6]

    [6] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Dr Monique Parkin, page 580.

12. On 30 September 2019, the Applicant completed a waitlist questionnaire at the Northside Health NT general practice clinic. The Applicant complained of gut, weight and mental health issues that she thought were all related to her gut issues. The Applicant also reported possible hormonal issues and tonsil stones. Regarding her mental health, the Applicant said:

    -    I get really bad brain fog and can find it hard to maintain my concentration

    -    Low energy a lot of the time and constantly feel tired despite getting roughly 8 hours of sleep a night

    -    I have notice a dop in my motivation.[7]

    [7] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Northside Health NT Waitlist Patient Questionnaire, page 523.

13. The Applicant summarised that “All of my symptoms, except the tonsil stones have been present since 2015, when I returned from India.”[8]

    [8] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Northside Health NT Waitlist Patient Questionnaire, page 524.

14. In early 2020, the Applicant also reported gut issues, extreme exhaustion ongoing for more than two years, and muscle aches to her general practitioner Dr Jane Chapman. She has had a persistent iron deficiency,[9] which is indicated in numerous test results since February 2020.[10]

    [9] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Dr Jane Chapman, page 430.

    [10] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Sullivan Nicolaides, page 153.

15. The Applicant attended the Biome Clinic from 2020 after suspecting she had suffered from Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth Syndrome (“SIBO”). In an email to the Clinic dated 26 January 2020, the Applicant reported symptoms of chronic constipation, occasional lower abdomen/pelvic pain with the sensation of needing to rush to the bathroom, faecal impaction, reflux, bloating, sensation of food in the back of the throat, nausea and stomach troubles after eating, days of hunger versus days of little to no hunger, brain fog, difficulty concentrating, low energy levels, sensation of tiredness despite sleeping an average of 8-9 hours of sleep a night, bad skin and an increase in PMS symptoms.[11] The Applicant reported:

    I have been suffering digestive issues since a backpacking holiday I took to India in 2014-2015. I have been to see some doctors and naturopaths, but I am yet to find the cause of the issues.[12]

    [11] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Biome Clinic, pages 274-275.

    [12] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Biome Clinic, pages 274.

16. During a consultation with the Biome Clinic on 11 May 2020, it was reported that the Applicant had symptoms of gut issues including bloating, nausea and reflux, brain fog, low energy, a drop in motivation, hormonal issues, joint pain, chronic constipation, difficulties with her weight, excess mucus production (always blowing her nose and clearing her throat) and a rash under her arms.[13]

    [13] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Dr Jane Chapman, pages 346-347.

17. On 11 May 2020, the Applicant answered in a questionnaire that she was sensitive to mould and that there was mould in her home. When questioned about these answers under cross-examination, the Applicant stated that she had smelt mould and assumed she was sensitive to it. Furthermore, she stated she had previously found small mould spores in the air-conditioning unit in her accommodation. In the same questionnaire, the Applicant stated that “my gut issues began from my holiday to India in 2014/15 and haven’t cleared up since”.[14] Later that month, the Applicant had stool testing at a United States laboratory that indicated a need for microbiome support.[15]

    [14] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Questionnaire the Biome Clinic, pages 390-391

    [15] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Genova Diagnostics Report, page 484.

18. At the end of 2020, the Applicant reported an improvement in her symptoms but that she will still experiencing ongoing fatigue.

    Employment and injury

19. On 15 February 2021, the Applicant commenced her employment at ALC.[16]

    [16] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, Letter of Employment, PT17, pages 87-103.

20. In March 2021, the Applicant’s naturopath Ms Anne Criner arranged for her to undergo endocrinology testing. Samples were sent to the testing lab in April 2021. The Applicant answered questions indicating she suspected that she suffered from chronic fatigue, little to no energy, issues maintaining concentration and muscle aches.

21. The Applicant reported high levels of mould to maintenance at her employee accommodation on 29 April 2021.[17] That is the date of injury.

    [17] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, Email of 29 April 2021 5:02PM, PT17, pages 82.

22. On 29 April 2021, the Applicant emailed the Biome Clinic and expressed worries about mould toxicity. The Applicant said that her body had felt like it had just flared up and that she was suffering issues with her sinus, throat and eyes. The Applicant had difficulty concentrating and felt exhausted despite getting up to nine hours of sleep per night. The Applicant had aching muscles and struggled to get out of bed.[18]

    [18] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Biome Clinic, page 392.

    Post-injury

23. On 30 April 2021, the Applicant attended the Alyangula Community Health Centre and reported that her house was full of mould. The consultation notes state the following:

    “Has been staying the new ACL accommodation - Has been there for 8 weeks and this was ok until last weekend when her unit just exploded with mold! – Has been battling the mould every since, Cleaning ++ - All along shelves, cupboards, pillows, photo frames etc – Has been feeling unwell for 10 days since the mould started – Blocked sinuses and ears – Eyes and throat are sore and itchy – Persistent headache. Feels like a dehydration headache – Fatigued – slept for 11 hours each night over the weekend – Having trouble concentrating due to the fatigue – Muscles and joints have been sore.”[19]

    [19] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, NT Health, page 106.

24. The Applicant requested a medical certificate to obtain a one-week extension for a university assignment. A medical certificate was issued certifying her unfit for work from 30 April 2021 to 2 May 2021.

25. On 4 May 2021, the Applicant attended a general practitioner Dr Clare Guest at the GEMCO Clinic. She reported she had been feeling unwell for 10 days with symptoms of blocked sinuses and ears, sore and itchy eyes and throat, persistent headache, fatigue, concentration issues and sore muscles and joints. Dr Guest provided her with a medical certificate certifying her unfit for work from 4 May 2021 to 7 May 2021.

26. Dr Guest certified that the Applicant had multiple health issues since the sudden and moderate infestation of mould in her accommodation. Dr Guest considered that the Applicant should move accommodation and it should be professionally cleaned.[20]

    [20] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, NT Health, page 114.

27. On 10 May 2021, the Applicant was moved into new accommodation.

28. On 13 May 2021, the Applicant consulted with Ms Criner and reported that the mould issue had been resolved by moving into new accommodation. She reported that her sore and itchy eyes and throat had resolved and that her headache had basically dissipated. However, the Applicant was still feeling exhausted, foggy and had muscle and joint pain. There was some resolution with her sinuses.[21]

    [21] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Counselling Questionnaire, page 365.

29. On 5 July 2021, the Applicant received functional endocrinological testing provided by a laboratory in the United States. It indicated low levels of testosterone and free cortisol levels.[22] In a pre-test questionnaire, the Applicant had expressed concerns that she had an issue producing hormones as she had bad premenstrual symptoms.[23]

    [22] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, DUTCH Test Results, pages 560-577.

    [23] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, DUTCH Test Requisition Form, page 579.

30. On 12 October 2021, Ms Criner issued a letter stating that the Applicant had been referred to the Biome clinic with a diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome and chronic inflammatory response syndrome due to exposure to water damaged buildings.[24] She suggested that a lighter workload during this phase of treatment would be helpful to the Applicant’s recovery. The Applicant subsequently requested to reduce her hours to four days a week.

    [24] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, T8, Letter of Anne Criner.

31. On 8 November 2021, Ms Criner signed a certificate for capacity for work that provided a medical assessment of the Applicant’s work capacity.[25]

    (a)In Part A, Ms Criner opined that the Applicant’s physical and mental capacity was lowered due to the metabolic response to toxic mould exposure. Ms Criner diagnosed the Applicant with “Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome due to Water Damaged Building/ Biotoxin Exposure/ Mould Allergy”. She recommended that the Applicant was fit for work with reduced hours.

    (b)In Part C, under the heading “Medical practitioner’s details”, appear the details of the Biome Clinic. In the signature block, next to the words “Medical practitioner’s signature”, appear a signature and the name “Anne Criner”.

    [25] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Certificate of Capacity for Work, pages 427-428.

32. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that Ms Criner is a medical practitioner. Ms Criner was not called to give evidence and no adverse findings are made against her. Nevertheless, this seemingly significant error causes the Tribunal to be guarded about her documentary evidence in this matter.

33. On 12 November 2021, the Applicant submitted a claim for workers’ compensation in respect of “ongoing health complications due to exposure to high levels of mould in my previous place of residence”. She noted various symptoms including aching joints/muscles, brain fog, fatigue, sore, puffy and watery eyes, sore, dry and itchy throat, congested sinuses, headaches, tingling/pins and needle pain in the soles of the feet, morning stiffness in the body, changes in appetite and bloating sensation, poor quality sleep, physical and mental fatigue, mood swings and reduced resilience to stress and anxiety.

34. On 15 August 2022, the Applicant ceased consulting the Biome Clinic as she could not afford to continue treatment. The Applicant thanked Ms Criner for assisting her with healing her SIBO.[26]

    [26] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Email at 4:55 PM, page 248.

35. The Respondent referred the Applicant to Dr David Gorman, a Consultant General Physician, Pain Management Physician and Medical Oncologist for medical assessment.

36. Dr Gorman provided a report dated 27 January 2022 (“the Report”),[27] a supplementary report dated 10 February 2022 (“the Supplementary Report”) and a further supplementary report dated 22 February 2023.[28] Dr Gorman gave evidence at the hearing. The substance of Dr Gorman’s evidence is that that the mould did not continue to contribute to the Applicant’s ongoing symptoms.

    [27] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, PT18, Report of Doctor Gorman.

    [28] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, Supplementary Report of Dr Gorman, PT19.

37. Dr Gorman opined that the Applicant had an allergic reaction to mould causing upper respiratory tract symptoms while she lived in the mouldy accommodation. She had acute symptoms such as a dry, sore and itchy throat and congested sinuses. Her mould exposure may have also caused fatigue and aching joints and muscles but would not lead to ongoing symptoms of fatigue or difficulty concentrating. Dr Gorman’s opinion was that the symptoms the Applicant experienced from the exposure to mould on 29 April 2021 would have resolved over the month after she moved into new accommodation on 10 May 2021.

38. Materially, Dr Gorman’s evidence is that it is not physiologically possible for the Applicant’s ongoing symptoms to be caused by mould exposure. He believed her ongoing symptoms were likely related to underlying pre-existing problems. At the hearing, Dr Gorman gave evidence regarding the Applicant’s low ferritin levels to the effect that an iron deficiency would explain some of her symptoms. This is consistent with an endocrinology report of 24 March 2022.[29]

    [29] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Clinical History and Findings of Dr Hannah Farquhar, page 582.

39. The Applicant wrote to Dr Nicholas Morgan of CK Health and Wellbeing seeking answers to various questions in relation to her workers’ compensation claim.[30] Dr Morgan is a general practitioner with a Diploma of Tropical Medicine. He was not called to give evidence.

    [30] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Letter to Dr Nicholas Morgan, pages 87-90.

40. Dr Morgan wrote a letter for the Applicant dated 26 May 2023.[31] In that letter, Dr Morgan postulated the “mechanism of CIRS”. In this postulation, he placed weight on the work of United States environmental physician Dr Richard Shoemaker who has drawn a connection with people with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFs) and Water Damaged Buildings. Dr Morgan opined that the Applicant:

    “… strongly fulfills the validated CIRS questionnaire composed by Dr Richard Shoemaker (Shoemaker et al. 2017), with many of the above symptom clusters positive, and has a strong history of falling ill with her ME/CFs diagnosis at the time of exposure to a Water Damage Building by way of her workplace, and shows evidence of elevated Mycotoxins (Ochratoxin A, and Citrinin) in a Urinary MycoTox test through the Great Plains Laboratory, both of which are produced from Aspergillus and Penicillium mold species.” [32]

    [31] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Report of Dr Nicholas Morgan, pages 79-86.

    [32] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Report of Dr Nicholas Morgan, page 82.

41. Dr Morgan concluded that he was “proceeding with treatment according to a clinically made diagnosis of CIRS”.[33] This diagnosis presumably relied upon Dr Shoemaker’s validated CIRS questionnaire. Dr Morgan’s letter includes 18 academic references to work either authored, or co-authored, by Dr Shoemaker.[34] It is unclear to the Tribunal which, if any, of these references gives rise to the validated questionnaire referred to by Dr Morgan.

    [33] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Report of Dr Nicholas Morgan, page 84.

    [34] Exhibit R3, Agreed Tender Bundle, Report of Dr Nicholas Morgan, pages 84-86.

    ISSUES

    Issue 1: Is the condition of chronic inflammatory response syndrome real and associated with the Applicant’s case?

42. The Respondent does not accept, in line with Dr Gorman’s opinion, that CIRS is a recognised medical diagnosis.[35]

    [35] Exhibit R1, Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [39].

43. In his Supplementary Report and oral evidence, Dr Gorman was asked whether he recognised CIRS to be a medical condition and if so, whether it applies in any way to the Applicants condition. Dr Gorman stated that he did not believe CIRS to be a recognised medical condition and that it is not listed in the WHO ICD – 11 list of recognised diseases, although that omission is not determinative.

44. Dr Gorman noted that CIRS is controversial and that some medical practitioners believe that it exists and is caused by “biotoxins” such as mould. In his oral evidence, Dr Gorman was mindful to keep his opinions within his area of expertise. However, he was unshaken in his view was that there was an insufficient causal nature between exposure to mould and unexplained symptom complexes. Dr Gorman did not believe that CIRS is a valid diagnostic label.

1. The Applicant contends that CIRS is a valid condition. She submits that the evidence of Dr Morgan should be preferred over that of Dr Gorman. Taking Dr Morgan’s evidence at its highest point, however, the mechanism of CIRS is still mere postulation. Despite extensive academic references, the validated methodology of diagnosing CIRS is opaque to the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal notes Conway; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 1552, per Senior Member Illingworth. That matter involved an application for a Disability Support Pension where the listed medical conditions included Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, CIRS, and biotoxin and mould illness. The applicant in that matter resided in the Territory and had been diagnosed with CIRS by a dietician. However, at paragraph [113], the condition of CIRS was not pressed as a separate condition to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. That approach was supported by the evidence of an occupational physician in that matter, at paragraph [82].

3. CIRS may be real in some form, but the balance of the evidence before the Tribunal in this matter does not support a positive finding that CIRS exists as a recognised medical condition. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that CIRS has sufficiently wide acceptance within the medical profession for it to be accurately diagnosed. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that at CIRS is an injury or a disease within the meaning of s 5A or s 5B of the Act. Accordingly, the Applicant’s claim for CIRS cannot succeed.

   Issue 1: Conclusion:

4. The Tribunal is not satisfied that CIRS is an injury or a disease within the meaning of s 5A or s 5B of the Act. Accordingly, the Applicant’s claim for CIRS cannot succeed.

   Issue 2: Should the Applicant be entitled to compensation notwithstanding her inability to provide medical certificates for time off work due to ill health from a health professional who meets the Respondent’s requirements?

5. Under the Act, medical treatment (including work capacity certificates) must be provided for by a legally qualified medical practitioner.

6. The Applicant works in a remote part of the Northern Territory. It is uncontentious that accessing a legally qualified medical practitioner was difficult on Groote Eylandt. It was potentially impossible to do so in-person at times during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence is that the Applicant was largely unable to access a legally qualified medical practitioner to obtain work capacity certificates.

7. The Applicant argues “that the requirement for medical certificates on the terms sought by the Respondent, for compensation for days absent from employment due to illness should be waived on this occasion.”[36] The Applicant referred to regulation 12 of the Return to Work Regulations 1986 (NT). This regulation allows for a registered nurse or a registered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioner to issues a medical certificate of capacity for a worker if a medical practitioner is unable to do so, because of the worker’s isolation.

   [36] Exhibit A1, Applicant’s Arguments Against and Issues with the Decision by Comcare.

8. The Applicant contends that this definition of who may issue a certificate of capacity should prevail over the definition in the Act because the Applicant works and resides in the Territory and the mould occurred in the Territory.

9. This is an intelligent argument, particularly as it was put forward by a lay advocate. It has highlighted a potential lacuna in the law, or non liquet, where a person who cannot obtain a medical certificate by virtue of their remoteness may effectively be denied compensation. In any event, the Tribunal has no power to waive the requirement under the Act for a work capacity certificate to be provided for by a legally qualified medical practitioner.

   Issue 2: Conclusion:

10. The Applicant is not entitled to compensation in the absence of a valid work capacity certificate, notwithstanding her inability to access a legally qualified medical practitioner.

    Issue 3: Does the period for which the Applicant suffered from her condition(s) extend beyond 10 June 2021?

11. The Respondent accepted that the Applicant suffered allergic reaction to mould and aggravation of IBS as a result of the mould exposure on 29 April 2021. It classifies these conditions as diseases pursuant to s 5B of the Act.

12. The Respondent contends that the Applicant’s allergic reaction to mould and aggravation of IBS resolved on 10 June 2021, one month after the Applicant moved accommodation, and no longer resulted in the need for medical treatment or incapacity for work.

13. The Applicant submits that her health has been adversely affected beyond 10 June 2021.

14. Noting the Tribunal’s findings regarding CIRS, and the Tribunal’s findings regarding the lack of entitlements in the absence of a medical certificate of capacity, it is unnecessary to address Issue 3 in detail.

15. The Tribunal does find that the Applicant has suffered iron deficiency and sinonasal, gut, weight, and mental health conditions that all pre-date her employment with ALC. Many of these symptoms are long-term and have been present since the Applicant returned from India in 2015. She also received treatment for her SIBO from Ms Criner through to August 2022 and has had other ongoing symptoms, which are being treated by Dr Morgan.

16. The Tribunal places weight on Dr Gorman’s evidence that the Applicant’s ongoing symptoms are likely related to her underlying pre-existing conditions. The Tribunal is not satisfied that that the Applicant’s ongoing symptoms were contributed to in a significant degree by her employment.

    Issue 3: Conclusion:

17. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant continued to experience the effects of any compensable conditions after 10 June 2021, because they were not contributed to in a significant degree by her employment.

    CONCLUSION

18. Accordingly, the Tribunal must affirm the Reviewable Decision.

    DECISION

19. Pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the Reviewable Decision of the Respondent dated 29 April 2022.

I certify that the preceding 63 (sixty-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member George

.............................[Sgnd]..............................

Associate

Date of Decision:	23 January 2024
Date of Hearing:	7, 8 and 27 November 2023
Advocate for the Applicant:	Applicant’s father
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms Claire Tota HBA Legal

ANNEXURE A

64.     EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE	PARTY	DATE OF DOCUMENT	DATE RECEIVED	DATE TENDERED
R1	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions	R	17/7/2023	17/7/2023	7/11/2023
R2	T-Documents	R	N/A	29/7/2022
R3	Agreed Tender Bundle	R	N/A	3/11/2023
A1	Applicant’s Arguments and Issues with the Decision of Comcare	A	17/6/2023	13/8/2023
A2	Bundle of Documents: ·     National Health and Medical Research Council - Targeted Call for Research into Biotoxin-related Illnesses ·      Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council Funds Study into Biotoxin-related Illnesses	A	N/A	17/6/2023
A3	Bundle of Documents: ·     ICD-11 Fact Sheet ·     National Health and Medical Research Council - Targeted Call for Research into Biotoxin-related Illnesses – Incl. Department of Health and Aged Care Statement	A	N/A	31/10/2023