Sathiamoorthy and Australian Postal Corporation
[2004] AATA 501
•19 May 2004
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 501
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No A2001/474,
) 478 & 482
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re THAREESWARY SATHIAMOORTHY Applicant
And
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr G A Mowbray Date19 May 2004
PlaceCanberra
Decision The Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision of 7 November 2001 covering the three separate claims for the 1993 work incident, the 1997 motor vehicle accident and the 2001 motor vehicle accident. ..............................................
Member
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – continuing liability – incapacity payments – medical expenses – constitutional degenerative spinal condition – aggravation – reliability of applicant – decision affirmed
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) sections 16, 19
Re Quinn and Australian Postal Corporation (1992) 15 AAR 519
Commonwealth v Borg (1991) reported in Telstra Corporation v Arden (1994) 20 AAR 285 at 299n
Comcare v Nicholls [1999] FCA 209
Asioty v Canberra Abattoir Pty Ltd (1989) 167 CLR 533
Australian Postal Corporation v Bessey (2001) 32 AAR 508
Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission (1989) 10 AAR 191REASONS FOR DECISION
19 May 2004 Mr G A Mowbray Summary
1. Mrs Thareeswary Sathiamoorthy, the Applicant in this matter, was permanently appointed as a mail officer with the Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post), the Respondent, on 8 July 1988. It appears that she had previously been employed by Australia Post before her permanent appointment. Mrs Sathiamoorthy still works full-time with Australia Post, but on modified duties.
2. There are three work-related incidents which are relevant to the inquiry before the Tribunal. Mrs Sathiamoorthy made a claim on 19 July 1993 for left side shoulder and neck pain as a result of an incident about two weeks earlier. She had been sorting large letters which required repeated turning of the head to the left. On 10 November 1997 Mrs Sathiamoorthy had a motor vehicle accident on the way home from work resulting in right shoulder tissue bruising. Mrs Sathiamoorthy was involved in a second motor vehicle accident on 8 February 2001, again on the way home from work, causing right shoulder and neck pain.
3. Australia Post accepted liability for each of these injuries. However, on 10 October 2001 Australia Post advised Mrs Sathiamoorthy that she was no longer entitled to compensation for any of the three incidents. Australia Post affirmed this determination in a reviewable decision on 7 November 2001. As this decision related to the three different claims it has been treated as constituting three separate reviewable decisions, one for the 1993 claim, another for the 1997 claim and the third for the 2001 claim.
4. I have concluded that the relevant pain that Mrs Sathiamoorthy may suffer from her neck, shoulders and arms is due to an underlying constitutional degenerative spinal condition. The aggravations to that condition resulting from the three incidents have now ceased and had ceased by 10 October 2001. I have therefore affirmed the reviewable decision of 7 November 2001.
Issues
5. The broad issue before the Tribunal concerns Mrs Sathiamoorthy's ongoing entitlement to compensation as a result of the three incidents in 1993, 1997 and 2001. Mrs Sathiamoorthy has been provided with compensation at various times since 1993 in the form of incapacity payments under section 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (1988) (the Act) and compensation for medical expenses under section 16 of the Act.
6. The specific issues are
- from what condition does Mrs Sathiamoorthy suffer
- is this condition work-related
- is Mrs Sathiamoorthy incapacitated for work
- is Mrs Sathiamoorthy entitled to medical expenses.
The Burden of Persuasion
7. Where a reviewable decision is one "ceasing liability" there is an obligation on the Tribunal to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the particular condition has ceased. A respondent asserting that an applicant is no longer entitled to compensation must produce material supporting a change in circumstances. The Tribunal as an administrative decision-maker must be satisfied that the applicant no longer suffers from the compensable condition (see ReQuinn and Australian Postal Corporation (1992) 15 AAR 519 at 525, Commonwealth v Borg (1991) at 307 reported in Telstra Corporation v Arden (1994) 20 AAR 285 at 299n, Comcare v Nicholls [1999] FCA 209 at [22]).
From What Condition Does Mrs Sathiamoorthy Suffer
8. Mrs Sathiamoorthy submitted that prior to her work injuries she was not incapacitated. She had no difficulties with her neck, shoulders and back. She worked and also managed her home with a typical social schedule of receiving and visiting family and friends, including new arrivals in the community. Mrs Sathiamoorthy was expected to prepare meals both at her home and at the homes of her friends. For example she undertook most of the cooking for her family.
9. Now she does only minor tasks at and around the home. Her husband, who did not cook before the incidents, and her two daughters do any heavy tasks associated with cleaning, shopping and cooking. She drives to work and to the nearest shops about five minutes away. Here she can park without reversing and buy a few items such as bread, milk and the paper. She also waters the garden. However, because of her condition her family cannot participate in social activities as they had in the past.
10. In her evidence Mrs Sathiamoorthy described the pain that she suffered as a result of the three incidents. It has never gone away. She experiences it in the back of the head, the left of the neck, the left shoulder and the left arm. Shaking her head and turning her neck are painful. She manages the pain by medication, principally Celebrex and Panadeine or Panadol, neck exercises and massage from her husband. She also undergoes hydrotherapy treatment.
11. When she saw Dr Neil McGill, a consultant rheumatologist, in July 2002, Mrs Sathiamoorthy said that she had pain at the back of her neck which radiated symmetrically into both upper limbs. At night her hands felt numb, but not during the day. At the time of her previous visit to Dr McGill in November 2000 she had also described numbness in the right thumb, index and middle fingers and the left little, ring and middle fingers.
12. When Dr Warren Harrex, a consultant occupational physician, examined Mrs Sathiamoorthy in September 2002 she said that her main problem was a constant pain in the left side of her occiput which extended down her neck, over the left supraspinatus muscle of her left shoulder, down the extensor surface of the left upper limb and into the dorsum of the left hand. She told Dr Harrex that on a scale of one-to-ten her pain was usually about eight with the intensity varying from about five o’clock in the morning to eight o’clock at the end of the day. This was particularly so if she had been working.
13. Mrs Sathiamoorthy's general practitioner, Dr Saba Somasundaram, reported in April 2003 that she was suffering ongoing persistent neck, left shoulder and left arm pain and stiffness of her neck, left side shoulder and arm. He gave oral evidence that he had not seen a great deal of change in her symptoms over the three and a half years during which he had been treating her.
14. I have included the description by these medical practitioners of Mrs Sathiamoorthy's symptoms because she was somewhat vague in her own evidence. Drs McGill and Harrex were the two most recent specialists that she had attended and Dr Somasundaram is her general practitioner.
15. When Miss Robyn Schellenberger, a specialist general surgeon, first examined Mrs Sathiamoorthy in March 2000, she diagnosed an aggravation to pre-existing asymptomatic age related multi-level cervical disc degeneration from the 1993 incident. Mrs Sathiamoorthy sustained a further aggravation to the pre-existing cervical complaint in the 1997 car accident. She had not recovered from the vertebral injuries caused by the work incident and the car accident by March 2000.
16. In her later report of September 2001 Miss Schellenberger confirmed her diagnosis from the 1993 and 1997 incidents and stated that the 2001 car accident further aggravated Mrs Sathiamoorthy's neck. In Miss Schellenberger's view the neck complaint had improved since this aggravation, but it had not stabilised. Although it should improve further, Mrs Sathiamoorthy might never fully recover from the aggravation. Miss Schellenberger also suggested that the possibility of bilateral shoulder rotator cuff injuries as a consequence of the car accidents should be examined. She confirmed her diagnoses in oral evidence.
17. Dr Harrex found in September 2002 that Mrs Sathiamoorthy suffered primarily from cervical disc degeneration and cervical spondylosis. The history of pain arising from her work duties in 1993 and the two motor vehicle accidents suggested that these incidents probably aggravated her condition. Mrs Sathiamoorthy's chronic pain was a consequence of spinal degeneration and spondylosis. Under cross-examination he confirmed that Mrs Sathiamoorthy's pain was consistent with this diagnosis.
18. After examining Mrs Sathiamoorthy for Australia Post in May 2001 Dr Michael Glicksman, an occupational physician, concluded that there was no objective evidence of ongoing impairment or disability. Although there was investigatory evidence that she had suffered from a significant left-sided disc protrusion at the C6/7 level almost eight years previously, the underlying pathophysiological condition had resolved between August 1993 and June 1994. Dr Glicksman agreed in oral evidence that a number of imaging reports did show mild degenerative change. However, that degenerative change was not of a degree that would of itself suggest problems would arise, particularly in a person of Mrs Sathiamoorthy's age.
19. Dr McGill examined Mrs Sathiamoorthy in both November 2000 and July 2002. On both occasions he diagnosed her as having mild constitutional degenerative spinal disease including in the cervical and lumbar regions. Dr McGill accepted that the three incidents may have aggravated her condition and produced increased discomfort and pain, but only for a short period. He said that her work duties may have influenced the level of symptoms related to the degenerative changes in her spine without having any influence on the underlying disorder.
20. General practitioner Dr Somasundaram agreed that Mrs Sathiamoorthy had a pre-existing cervical spondylosis. However, in his opinion it had been aggravated by her work injury and the two motor vehicle accidents which continued to contribute to her current symptoms.
21. The medical evidence to which I have referred clearly points to Mrs Sathiamoorthy suffering from constitutional degenerative spinal disease, described by Dr Harrex as cervical disc degeneration and cervical spondylosis. This medical evidence is supported by imaging studies over a number of years extending back to 1993. The most recent of 21 February 2001 showed moderate C5/6 spondylosis.
22. The evidence also suggests that the work incident in 1993 and the two motor vehicle accidents in 1997 and 2001 each in turn aggravated Mrs Sathiamoorthy's underlying condition. This indeed is reflected in Australia Post's determinations accepting liability. In Dr McGill's words “the nature of that work was such that it may have caused her to experience increased discomfort related to her cervical spine disease at the time she was doing her work”. Similarly the motor vehicle accidents produced an exacerbation of pain in Mrs Sathiamoorthy's neck and shoulders.
Did Mrs Sathiamoorthy Exaggerate her Condition
23. Before I consider whether Mrs Sathiamoorthy's current condition involves an ongoing work-caused aggravation of her spinal condition, it is necessary to examine Australia Post's claims that Mrs Sathiamoorthy is an unreliable witness and exaggerated her symptoms when being examined by the medical practitioners. This may affect the weight that I place both on Mrs Sathiamoorthy's evidence and on that of the medical practitioners relying on the history which she provided to them.
24. Ms Henderson for Australia Post referred to a number of matters from the evidence which threw into question Mrs Sathiamoorthy's reliability and credibility as a witness.
25. Dr McGill concluded that Mrs Sathiamoorthy probably embellished the level of her symptoms. She demonstrated a lack of cooperation in her behaviour during her consultation with him. When Mrs Sathiamoorthy was asked to grip Dr McGill's fingers she released her hands. Dr McGill was able to overcome resisted wrist and elbow movements using only one finger. Mrs Sathiamoorthy allowed Dr McGill to overcome all muscle groups in both lower limbs while assessed lying on her back. She was, however, able to walk on her toes and to walk on her heels. Dr McGill commented that this showed a marked inconsistency. Again there were inconsistencies with straight leg raising. In Dr McGill's view the only explicable basis for these repeated inconsistencies was an intentional attempt to deceive.
26. An occupational therapist, Ms Rosemary Robinson, who examined Mrs Sathiamoorthy in July 2001 reported similar concerns. For example she found between 10 and 20 per cent of average grip strength for a woman of Mrs Sathiamoorthy's age. However, “this drastic reduction in demonstrated capacity was not accompanied by reports of difficulties with strong grip tasks or observable hand skills difficulties.”
27. In her evidence Mrs Sathiamoorthy stated that her left arm condition would not allow her to hang clothes on the line. She was unable to lift her left arm above her shoulders. Indeed she was only able to raise her left arm after taking medication which made it a little better. Her general practitioner, Dr Somasundaram, said she could probably only lift her left arm about 40 to 50 degrees in abduction without experiencing discomfort. She would certainly suffer discomfort if she raised her arm at 90 degrees from the body.
28. Miss Schellenberger reported in September 2001 “[t]here was a full range of painfree bilateral elbow, wrist and hand movement. On overhead arm movement she described pain in each shoulder and upper shoulder blade region”. Under cross-examination Miss Schellenberger agreed that Mrs Sathiamoorthy could move both arms above her head. Yet in answer to my questions Miss Schellenberger said Mrs Sathiamoorthy had difficulty raising her arms “to the mid-arc, which is sort of shoulder height.” Both Drs Glicksman and McGill found inconsistencies in her arm movements. Dr Harrex observed a full range of movement of the upper limbs.
29. A surveillance video of Mrs Sathiamoorthy on two days in April 2003 showed her on a number of occasions with one or both arms raised above her head. In particular on 12 April 2003 Mrs Sathiamoorthy is seen holding a garden hose with left arm movements significantly above the level of her shoulder and head. Her movements were smooth, confident and unhesitating and contradict her evidence and that of Dr Somasundaram. She was also able to hold or grip the hose in her left hand without apparent difficulty.
30. When asked to demonstrate rotation of her neck during examination-in-chief Mrs Sathiamoorthy was able to turn approximately half way, that is 45 degrees to the right and to the left. Under cross-examination she stated this was the best she could do, but it caused her pain. It had been like this since the 1993 incident. Medication would reduce the pain. She could not move her neck at all without medication. On re-examination she was able to rotate her head 60 degrees to the right and 45 degrees to the left.
31. This restricted rotation contrasted with the reports of most of the medical practitioners, Drs Chandran, Dowda, Cameron, Schellenberger, Harrex and Somasundaram. Each of these found either a full range of movement or at most a minimal or mild restriction. A number reported grimacing towards the limits of the movement.
32. Dr McGill said that Mrs Sathiamoorthy "performed cervical spine movement to 90 per cent of normal in all directions" when he first saw her in November 2000. In July 2002 when Dr McGill saw Mrs Sathiamoorthy again he discovered that
there was marked discrepancy between her movements when her attention was focussed on a particular area and her movements at other times. During the interview her neck movements were normal, fluent and not associated with any indication of discomfort. During the formal examination she indicated by wincing great discomfort with rotation of the neck. Although when lying supine, she was able to fully flex her neck without apparent difficulty or discomfort, to see what was happening when I was examining her feet and lower limb reflexes, during the formal assessment of neck flexion and extension she indicated discomfort although the range she performed was full.
My overall impression of her neck movement was that her range was normal or nearly so in all directions.
33. Dr Glicksman experienced a similar response when examining Mrs Sathiamoorthy in May 2001
While relaying her history to me, Mrs Sathiamoorthy was noted to demonstrate repeated full right cervical rotation, unaccompanied by the audible or visible expression of pain.
However when asked to voluntarily reproduce the movements observed, cervical flexion, extension and bilateral rotation all became suddenly and inexplicably grossly limited, and were accompanied by the audible expression of pain. She complained of significant pain in the paracervical regions and shoulders when attempting these movements.
34. Not only is there a discrepancy between Mrs Sathiamoorthy's performance with various medical practitioners, but also the video suggests that her neck movement is not as restricted as she would have us believe. There she is observed on a number of occasions turning her head to the left and to the right easily and without any apparent difficulty.
35. In response to Australia Post’s contentions Mr Selby for Mrs Sathiamoorthy pointed to the differing assessments by the medical practitioners of Mrs Sathiamoorthy's presentation at interview and examination. Her general practitioner for some three and a half years and her medical experts did not find her histrionic or prone to exaggeration. They found her pleasant and sincere. Miss Schellenberger referred to her as a pleasant and cooperative lady with a normal affect. On her second examination she noted her anxiety.
36. Mr Selby noted that Mrs Sathiamoorthy did not say “I cannot move” and that even a normal and healthy person does not have a neck rotation of 90 degrees. Mrs Sathiamoorthy undertook a range of activities, but all with the constant presence of pain. Indeed Australia Post did not lead any evidence that Mrs Sathiamoorthy was a “shirker and a work whinger” despite the long period of full-time restricted duties.
37. Having regard to all the evidence before me and particularly that referred to above, I am satisfied and I find that Mrs Sathiamoorthy tended consciously or unconsciously to embellish her symptoms and to exaggerate her condition. Dr McGill's evidence was particularly convincing in this regard. Despite testing under cross-examination and by myself it remained persuasive. It found support in my own observation of Mrs Sathiamoorthy both in the Tribunal and on the video. As outlined above it was reinforced in some important respects in the evidence of the other medical practitioners.
38. In my view Mrs Sathiamoorthy is not a reliable witness. Her evidence and that of the medical practitioners who relied on her for a history and an account of her symptoms and condition must be treated with caution.
Does Mrs Sathiamoorthy Still Suffer a Work-related Aggravation
39. I have recounted earlier Mrs Sathiamoorthy's evidence that she had no disability prior to the work incident in 1993, that since then she has continued to suffer constant pain which she treats with medication, hydrotherapy and massage and that her domestic and social activities have been significantly restricted because of this pain. This condition she said was exacerbated by the 1997 and 2001 motor vehicle accidents and was continuing. Mrs Sathiamoorthy's husband reinforced her evidence.
40. Miss Schellenberger in her more recent report of September 2001 found
Mrs Sathiamoorthy continues to suffer from the 1993 work aggravation to pre-existing asymptomatic cervical disc degeneration, from the 1997 work related car accident aggravation to the neck injury, and from the more recent 2nd work related car accident of February 2001 in which she further aggravated her neck in the interim since her last assessment. Currently there is no sign of persisting nerve root irritation from the earlier work injury; that appears to have fully resolved. Her current neck complaint has improved from the aggravation of the February 2001 car accident but it has not stabilized and further improvement should occur although she might never fully recover from that aggravation, similar to the situation with the two earlier work related neck injuries.
41. In her oral evidence, Miss Schellenberger said that Mrs Sathiamoorthy had never returned to the pre-car accident or the pre-work incident condition. The aggravations had not ceased and Mrs Sathiamoorthy's condition was not purely due to natural processes. The 1993 work injury had not resolved and the exacerbation after the first car accident had not ended. Although she had improved from the exacerbation from the second car accident that exacerbation had not fully resolved.
42. Dr Harrex did not appear to be as definite in his opinion. He confirmed that Mrs Sathiamoorthy has disc degeneration and cervical spondylosis and noted that
her history of pain arising from repetitive work duties in 1993 and the two motor vehicle accidents have probably aggravated her condition. Certainly she relates the clinical onset of her pains to the repetitive work duties in 1993. She suffers moderate to severe pain primarily in the neck and left shoulder as a consequence. The presence of a near normal range of movement of the cervical spine does not preclude the diagnosis.
Dr Harrex also reported that he considered that it was inevitable that Mrs Sathiamoorthy would continue to suffer pain and symptoms because her degenerative condition was likely to slowly deteriorate with increasing age.
43. Under cross-examination Dr Harrex accepted that it was possible that Mrs Sathiamoorthy's pain was from her natural degenerative process. There were two reasons, however, why he attributed the pain to the work duties and motor vehicle accidents. First Mrs Sathiamoorthy related the onset of her pain to the incident in 1993 and that had been accepted. Second she had told him that she had been stiff on the left side of the neck and in the right shoulder since the second motor vehicle accident. Nevertheless Dr Harrex accepted that it was possible to aggravate a degenerative change and for that aggravation to run its course and come to an end.
44. Mrs Sathiamoorthy's general practitioner, Dr Somasundaram, was of the opinion that her work injury and the two later car accidents had aggravated her pre-existing cervical spondylosis. They were continuing to contribute to her symptoms. Furthermore it was possible that her symptoms would flare up with physical exertion.
45. Dr McGill diagnosed relatively mild cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease. He said that all of the degenerative changes in Mrs Sathiamoorthy’s spine were constitutional and had not been caused or modified by her work activities. It was possible that her work duties had at times influenced the level of symptoms related to the degenerative changes in her spine without having any influence on the underlying disorder. The two motor vehicle accidents would have had only a temporary (a few weeks) effect on her symptoms and no effect on the underlying degenerative changes. Importantly any genuine current neck symptoms were related to the constitutional degenerative changes and not to any work-related problem.
46. In his oral evidence Dr McGill confirmed that Mrs Sathiamoorthy may have had some temporary aggravation caused by her physical activities at work in 1993. Similarly the aggravations arising from the motor vehicle accidents were only temporary such that "each accident had settled - had ceased to have an effect within about three weeks of the accident at most". There was nothing on the imaging studies to indicate that an accident had produced any permanent change. None of the three work-related incidents would predispose Mrs Sathiamoorthy to a greater likelihood of a flare up at a later date.
47. According to Dr Glicksman there was no objective evidence of ongoing impairment or disability. He had noted a significant left-sided disc protrusion at the C6/7 level in August 1993, but the underlying condition had resolved by June 1994.
48. Having regard to all the evidence before me I am comfortably satisfied that the effects of the aggravations caused by Mrs Sathiamoorthy's 1993 work duties and the two motor vehicle accidents had ceased by the time of the determination on 10 October 2001 and certainly by the hearing in the Tribunal. The injuries to Mrs Sathiamoorthy's neck, shoulders and left arm had well and truly resolved. In reaching this conclusion I note in particular
·the relatively minor nature of the incidents, especially the car accidents, and the length of time since they occurred
·the short periods of compensation leave these incidents occasioned, although I note that Mrs Sathiamoorthy has been on restricted duties for most of the period since the first incident
·the relatively mild use of medication relied on by Mrs Sathiamoorthy to ameliorate her symptoms
·my observation of Mrs Sathiamoorthy both in the witness box and on video, including the obvious discrepancies referred to above in her range of movement, both of her arms and her neck, and in her grip strength
·my finding that Mrs Sathiamoorthy has embellished her symptoms and exaggerated her condition and the implications this has for the reliability of her evidence and of some of the medical evidence
·the failure of all the medical practitioners to report muscle wasting of the upper limbs, something which would be expected if Mrs Sathiamoorthy had been suffering the prolonged level of pain she reported
·Dr McGill's clear explanation of Mrs Sathiamoorthy's condition which I found credible and persuasive
·Dr Harrex's evidence much of which was consistent with the findings of Dr McGill
·the less convincing opinion of Ms Schellenberger which was somewhat vague and general.
49. Mr Selby contended that Mrs Sathiamoorthy’s circumstances were similar to those considered in Asioty v Canberra Abattoir Pty Limited (1989) 167 CLR 533. That case distinguished between an aggravation rendering a constitutional disease symptomatic and an aggravation which made some change to the underlying disease. Mr Selby asserted that Mrs Sathiamoorthy's condition was of the latter type, predisposing Mrs Sathiamoorthy to the greater likelihood of a flare up. I do not agree. Dr McGill's evidence makes it clear that the incidents in this case did not cause any change in the underlying condition
I think ... the likelihood of her experiencing increased discomfort in her spine tomorrow by returning to work would have been the same regardless of whether she had been at work previously with Australia Post or had had the accidents.
Mrs Sathiamoorthy's condition is more akin to that described in Australian Postal Corporation v Bessey (2001) 32 AAR 508 at 509
On the other hand, if the aggravation is temporary, so that after a time it ceases to have any effect and leaves the underlying condition no worse, then there is no relevant continuing injury causing incapacity.
See also Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission (1989) 10 AAR 191.
50. I am therefore satisfied that the pain that Mrs Sathiamoorthy may suffer from her neck, shoulders and arms is due to her underlying constitutional degenerative spinal condition. The aggravations to that condition resulting from the 1993 work incident, the 1997 motor vehicle accident and the 2001 motor vehicle accident have now ceased and had ceased by 10 October 2001.
51. In view of these findings it is unnecessary to consider whether Mrs Sathiamoorthy remains incapacitated for work as a result of a work-related injury and whether she is entitled to further medical expenses.
Conclusions
52. In summary I conclude that
- Mrs Sathiamoorthy suffers from a constitutional degenerative spinal disease
- the work incident in 1993 and the two motor vehicle accidents in 1997 and 2001 each in turn aggravated this underlying condition
- the aggravations resulting from these three work incidents have now ceased and had ceased by 10 October 2001
- the pain that Mrs Sathiamoorthy may suffer from her neck, shoulders and arms is due to her underlying constitutional degenerative spinal condition
- it is therefore not work-related.
Decision
53. Mrs Sathiamoorthy has received compensation payments under sections 16 and 19 of the Act for incapacity and for medical expenses. The determination of 10 October 2001 caused Mrs Sathiamoorthy's entitlement to those payments to cease from that date. The reviewable decision of 7 November 2001 affirmed the determination.
54. The Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision of 7 November 2001 covering the three separate claims for the 1993 work incident, the 1997 motor vehicle accident and the 2001 motor vehicle accident.
I certify that the 54 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr G A Mowbray.
Signed: .....................................................................................
AssociateDate of hearing 1 & 2 May 2003
Date of decision 19 May 2004
Counsel for the Applicant Hugh Selby
Solicitor for the Applicant Bill Redpath,
Pamela Coward & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent Rhonda Henderson
Solicitor for the Respondent Graham Jones
Graham Jones Lawyers
0
5
0