Seamons and Australian Postal Commission - [2005] AATA 1000

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1000
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Nº V2003/0506, Nº V2003/0865
Nº V2003/1199, Nº V2004/1285

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

Re: HIRAM ROBERT SEAMONS
Applicant

And: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION
Tribunal: G.D. Friedman, Senior Member
Date:11 October 2005
Place:Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review in application NºV2003/506.
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review in application NºV2003/865.
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review in application NºV2003/1199.
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review in application Nº V2004/1285.

(sgd) G.D. Friedman
Senior Member

COMPENSATION ‑ right groin strain ‑ back pain ‑ right inguinal hernia ‑ whether aggravation work-related ‑ whether applicant able to earn normal weekly earnings
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4(9), 8, 14, 16, 19, 37, 62
Lees v Comcare and Another (1999) 56 ALD 84
Martin v Australian Postal Corporation (2000) 32 AAR 1999
Slater v Telstra Corporation (2001) 115 FCR 34
Tippett v Australian Postal Corporation (1998) 27 AAR 40
REASONS FOR DECISION
11 October 2005  G.D. Friedman, Senior Member
1.      This is an application by Hiram Robert Seamons (the applicant) for review of four decisions of delegates of the Australian Postal Commission (the respondent) concerning his back, groin and the extent of any incapacity to work.
2.      At the hearing Mr D. Richards of counsel represented the applicant and Ms A. McMahon of counsel represented the respondent.
3. The Tribunal received into evidence the documents lodged under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, plus twelve exhibits (Exhibits A1‑A12) lodged by the applicant and six exhibits (Exhibits R1‑R6) lodged by the respondent.
BACKGROUND
4.      The applicant was born on 19 January 1950 and at all relevant times was employed by the respondent as a postal delivery officer.
5.      The applicant lodged claims for compensation under the Safety, Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1988 (the Act) for lower back pain/strain in 1991 and 1995. On 11 May 1995 liability was accepted for temporary episode of ligament strain - lower back. On 23 November 1998 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for lower back strain. On 29 January 1999 the respondent accepted liability for low back strain, which was later amended to temporary aggravation of underlying degeneration of the lumbar spine.
Application Nº V2003/506:
On 13 September 1999 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for right groin strain. In August, November and December 1999 the applicant’s general practitioner was informed by Mr R. Ferguson, general surgeon, that the applicant was experiencing pain, swelling and thickening in the right groin area but that there was no clinical hernia, although this remained a possibility.
6.      On 27 October 2000 the respondent denied liability for right groin strain, and on 4 January 2001 the respondent affirmed the decision. The applicant sought review of that decision by the Tribunal. On 6 June 2002 the Tribunal made orders by consent of the parties, under which the applicant was entitled to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Seamons and Australian Postal Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] AATA 1000
Decision Date: 11 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The decision concerns four applications for review by Hiram Robert Seamons, an employee of the Australian Postal Commission, of decisions relating to compensation for incapacity and medical expenses arising from work-related injuries. The applications were consolidated and heard together. The issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for incapacity and the cost of treatment for his medical conditions. The Tribunal considered evidence from medical practitioners and the submissions of counsel for the parties. The Tribunal found that the medical expenses relating to the surgery for the right inguinal hernia were not work-related. It found that any symptoms suffered after 30 April 2003 were due to age-related back degeneration, and are not compensable. The Tribunal found that the applicant does not have an incapacity to work and is not entitled to compensation for incapacity to work or to the payment of medical expenses. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review in each of the applications.

Orders