SEAMONS And AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION - [2004] AATA 1382

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1382
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Nº V2003/506
Nº V2003/1199

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

Re: HIRAM SEAMONS
Applicant

And: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL
COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION
Tribunal: G.D. Friedman, Member
Date:30 November 2004
Place:Melbourne
Decision:Application number V2003/506: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application lodged by the applicant.
Application number V2003/1199: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application lodged by the applicant.

(sgd) G.D. Friedman
Member

COMPENSATION - jurisdiction - orders made in respect of diagnosis of right groin strain - later diagnosis of right inguinal hernia - reconsideration on own motion - whether proceedings aborted
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 8, 14, 16, 19, 60, 62(1), 67(2), 72
Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn (2003) 73 ALD 659
Lees v Comcare and Another (1999) 56 ALD 84
Re ACT Department of Health and Nikolovski and Comcare (1996) 42 ALD 599
Re Coyne and Comcare (1995) 37 ALD 553
Re De Courcy Brown and Comcare (1997) 49 ALD 766
Re Moggach and Comcare Australia (AAT 10611, 19 December 1995)
Re Rebeiro and Comcare (1996) 44 ALD 632
Rosillo v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2003) 77 ALD 396
REASONS FOR DECISION
30 November 2004  G.D. Friedman, Member
1.      This is an application by Hiram Seamons (the applicant) for review of two decisions of a delegate of the Australian Postal Commission (the respondent): the first dated 3 April 2003 (Application number V2003/506) denying liability to pay compensation for the applicant’s claimed condition of right inguinal hernia; and the second dated 14 October 2003 (Application number V2003/1199) to cease liability to pay compensation to the applicant for aggravation of underlying lumbar disc degenerative disease and right groin strain from 19 August 2003.
2.      At the hearing on a question of jurisdiction on 22 October 2004, Mr M. Richards of counsel represented the applicant and Ms A. McMahon of counsel represented the respondent.
BACKGROUND
3.      The applicant was born on 19 January 1950 and at all relevant times was employed by the respondent as a postal delivery officer.
4.      The applicant lodged claims for compensation under the Safety, Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1988 (the SRC 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 and 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.
5.      Application number 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…

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: [2004] AATA 1382
Decision Date: 30 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Seamons sought compensation for a right groin strain injury sustained during employment. The Australian Postal Commission argued that the initial diagnosis of a right groin strain precluded a later diagnosis of a right inguinal hernia. This dispute was heard in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the applications for compensation and whether the proceedings had been aborted by the employer's argument that the initial diagnosis precluded the later diagnosis.

The court determined that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear both applications, as the Tribunal was established to address employment-related disputes and compensation claims. The court found that the employer's argument regarding the initial diagnosis did not constitute an abortive proceeding. The employer had not abandoned the argument that the later diagnosis was unrelated to the initial injury, and the court found that the employer had raised this issue in a manner consistent with the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Therefore, the court held that the Tribunal could determine the applications and that the employer's argument did not abort the proceedings.

Consequently, the court found that it had jurisdiction to determine both applications and that the employer's argument did not constitute an abortive proceeding. The orders made by the Tribunal were that it had jurisdiction to determine the applications lodged by the applicant in both application numbers V2003/506 and V2003/1199. The court did not make any further orders regarding the merits of the compensation claims in this decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application number V2003/506: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application lodged by the applicant.

Application number V2003/1199: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application lodged by the applicant.

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.