Sinclair-Jones and Comcare

Case [2004] AATA 546


Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 546

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No W2000/243

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION )
Re MICHAEL SINCLAIR-JONES

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Associate Professor S D Hotop, Deputy President

Dr D Weerasooriya, Member

Date27 May 2004

PlacePerth

Decision The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 22 May 2000 and, in substitution therefor, decides that:

(a)the respondent is liable under s 14(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“the SRC Act”) to pay compensation to the applicant in accordance with s 19 of that Act in respect of an injury to his back suffered by him on 2 February 1996 which resulted in his incapacity for work, and such liability was continuing on and from 16 August 1999, and is presently continuing;

(b)the amount of compensation payable to the applicant as from 16 August 1999, in accordance with s 19 of the SRC Act, is as specified in paragraph 144 of the Tribunal’s reasons herein.

The Tribunal orders, pursuant to s 67(8) of the SRC Act, that the respondent pay the costs of the applicant of these proceedings, such costs, in the absence of agreement between the parties as to the amount thereof, to be taxed by a District Registrar or a Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal in accordance with clause 6 of the Tribunal’s General Practice Direction dated 18 May 1998.

............(sgd S D Hotop).....................

Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employees – applicant employed by National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) as Community Liaison Officer – applicant suffered back injury in February 1996 – applicant claimed compensation – respondent accepted liability to pay compensation in April 1996 – applicant subsequently commenced graduated return to work programme – applicant resigned from NNTT before completion of programme, with effect from 16 August 1999 – respondent made determination that liability to pay incapacity payments to applicant ceased from 16 August 1999 – respondent made a reviewable decision affirming determination – scope of Tribunal’s review of reviewable decision – Tribunal may consider and determine whether applicant suffered a compensable back injury in February 1996 and whether applicant was ever incapacitated for work thereby – applicant did suffer compensable back injury in February 1996 – applicant’s back injury resulted in ongoing incapacity for work – quantum of compensation payable to applicant by way of incapacity payments – suitable employment – amount per week applicant able to earn in suitable employment – reviewable decision set aside.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), s 4(1), s 4(9), s 14(1) and s 19

Lees v Comcare (1999) 29 AAR 350

Martin v Australian Postal Corporation (2000) 32 AAR 199

Power v Comcare (1998) 89 FCR 514

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Warner (1994) 20 AAR 259

REASONS FOR DECISION

27 May 2004

Associate Professor S D Hotop, Deputy President
Dr D Weerasooriya, Member

Introduction

1.       Michael Sinclair-Jones (“the applicant”) has applied to the Tribunal for a review of a “reviewable…

Continue reading Sinclair-Jones and Comcare

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sinclair-Jones and Comcare [2004] AATA 546
Case
[2004] AATA 546
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sinclair-Jones and Comcare involved an employee who was employed by the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) as a Community Liaison Officer. The employee suffered a back injury in February 1996 and subsequently claimed compensation. The respondent, Comcare, accepted liability to pay compensation in April 1996. The employee commenced a graduated return to work programme but resigned from the NNTT before completing it, effective 16 August 1999. Comcare determined that the liability to pay incapacity payments ceased from that date and affirmed this determination upon review. The dispute focused on the scope of the Tribunal’s review of Comcare's reviewable decision and whether the employee suffered a compensable back injury that resulted in ongoing incapacity for work.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included the extent to which the Tribunal could review Comcare's determination and whether the employee's injury was indeed compensable and resulted in ongoing incapacity for work. The court also had to determine the quantum of compensation payable, considering the amount the employee could earn in suitable employment. The court considered previous cases such as Lees v Comcare, Martin v Australian Postal Corporation, Power v Comcare, and Telstra Corporation Ltd v Warner, which provided guidance on similar issues. The court's task was to balance the statutory provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) with the facts and circumstances of the case.

The court found that the Tribunal had the authority to review Comcare's decision and that the employee did indeed suffer a compensable back injury in February 1996. The injury resulted in ongoing incapacity for work, and the court set aside Comcare's determination. The court concluded that the employee's back injury was of a compensable nature and that the ongoing incapacity for work warranted continued incapacity payments. The court also assessed the amount the employee could earn in suitable employment and determined the appropriate quantum of compensation payable. The court ordered that Comcare’s reviewable decision be set aside and substituted with a new decision that recognised the employee's ongoing entitlement to incapacity payments.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 22 May 2000 and, in substitution therefor, decides that:

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.