Sequeira and Comcare - [2005] AATA 1284

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1284
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2005/333

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re LIONEL SEQUEIRA

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N Bell, Senior Member
Date22 December 2005
PlaceSydney

Decision
The decision under review is affirmed.

..............................................................
Ms N Bell
Senior Member

COMPENSATION – Claim for Incapacity Payments – Liability Accepted In Respect of Back Condition – Applicant Contends Absences Related to Back Condition – No Medical Certificates Provided – Operation of Section 54 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act - Lack of Certification Is Bar to Claim Being Successful – Decision Under Review Affirmed
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates 35 NSWLR 452
Cao v Australian Postal Corporation 61 ALD 299
REASONS FOR DECISION

22 December 2005 Ms N Bell, Senior Member

1.      Mr Sequeira worked for Centrelink from 25 July 1988 to 30 October 1998 and for AAMI from 30 August 1999 to 3 September 2004. On 25 October 1991, Mr Sequeira suffered an injury to his lower back when he was hit by a car. Liability was accepted by Comcare in respect of “a soft tissue injury to the lower back”. Compensation was paid to Mr Sequeira in relation to an incapacity for absence from work on 28 and 29 October 1991. No compensation was paid in relation to medical expenses. On 16 March 2004, Mr Sequeira claimed compensation for permanent impairment.
2.      Comcare accepted liability in respect of a ten per cent permanent impairment of Mr Sequeira’s lower back in accordance with sections 24 and 27 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”) and Table 9.6 of the Comcare Guide. On 1 September 2004, Mr Sequeira claimed compensation for incapacity for absences from work at Centrelink and AAMI, which he attributed to his lower back injury. He claimed absences from work by reference to printouts of leave records from each employer. Comcare refused compensation for incapacity on the basis that no medical evidence, including medical certificates, had been provided by Mr Sequeira to establish that the absences from work were related to his compensable injury. On reconsideration, this decision was affirmed. This is the reviewable decision under consideration in this application.
3.      At the hearing, Mr Sequeira narrowed the scope of his claim to a range of recreation leave days highlighted by him on a Centrelink leave card (R1) and two days of leave without pay highlighted on page 97 of the T documents (T 22). In relation to his employment with AAMI, Mr Sequeira narrowed his claim to a number of recreation leave days highlighted by him on a AAMI leave record at pages 65 and 66 of the T documents (T 22). He also claimed in respect of three days of leave without pay, recorded at page 66 of the T documents.
issues
4.      The first issue to be considered in this application is whether the absence of medical certificates…

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 Sequeira and Comcare 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 1284
Decision Date: 22 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sequeira and Comcare involved a claim for compensation by the applicant, Mr. Sequeira, against the Commonwealth of Australia, represented by Comcare, arising from an alleged workplace injury. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which had dismissed Mr. Sequeira's claim for compensation. Mr. Sequeira argued that the AAT erred in its assessment of the evidence regarding the causation and the extent of his injury and the subsequent impact on his ability to work.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions and principles in its assessment of the evidence and in its determination that Mr. Sequeira's injuries did not meet the criteria for compensation under the applicable legislation. The court was required to consider the extent to which the AAT had exercised its discretion in evaluating the evidence and whether there had been any errors of law or significant procedural unfairness that warranted overturning the AAT's decision.

The court found that the AAT had properly exercised its discretion and applied the relevant legal principles in assessing the evidence. The court noted that the AAT had considered all relevant evidence and had made findings that were supported by the material before it. The court concluded that there were no errors of law or procedural unfairness that would warrant overturning the AAT's decision. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision of the AAT, dismissing Mr. Sequeira's claim for compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		LIONEL SEQUEIRA