Singh and Telstra Corporation Limited

[2007] AATA 1595

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1595

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q 200600124

General Administrative DIVISION		)
Re		Jim Singh

Applicant

And Telstra Corporation Limited

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member Bernard J McCabe

Date30/04/2007

PlaceLismore

Decision The decision under review is affirmed. 

...............[Sgd]....................

SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – Injury – whether condition exists – whether condition attributable to workplace – decision under review affirmed

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988

WRITTEN REASONS FOR ORAL DECISION

27/07/2007 Senior Member Bernard J McCabe         

1.      A decision was made and oral reasons given at the hearing of this matter. The applicant subsequently requested written reasons. This statement of reasons has been distilled from the transcript of the hearing.

2. I am satisfied there is a reviewable decision before the Tribunal. The dispute in this case appears to revolve around a relatively narrow question: whether or not Mr Singh suffers from an injury as defined in section 4 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The section refers to:

“An injury that is suffered by an employee that arises out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment, or an aggravation of an injury, even if that other injury is not caused by employment, if the aggravation itself is caused by employment.”

3.      I need to actually identify something that is physically wrong with the applicant, and I must be able to draw a connection between that condition and the applicant’s work. 

4.      It certainly appears from the medical evidence that Mr Singh has been forthright and honest in his dealing with the doctors, and the doctors have discovered he does suffer painful conditions in his joints in his upper body and also his knees. 

5.      We have three medical reports.  Dr Smith examined the applicant, at the applicant’s request, comparatively recently.  Dr Millroy examined the applicant at the respondent’s request.  Dr Gray, a rheumatologist, examined the applicant at the request of the applicant’s general practitioner.

6.      I am satisfied the applicant suffers from rheumatoid arthritis.  I rely in particular on Dr Gray’s report. Dr Gray has completed a radiological examination but also, importantly, he has done blood tests which indicate rheumatoid arthritis.  The applicant does not suggest it is connected to his work.  The real issues here are whether he additionally suffers from osteoarthritis, whether that condition can be attributable to his work, and whether that work-related condition contributes to his impairment.

7.      The reports of Dr Millroy and Dr Gray do not necessarily exclude the possibility of osteoarthritis co-existing with the rheumatoid arthritis.  Dr Smith says it is osteoarthritis, and has had regard to the X-rays in the course of forming that opinion.  He did say, however, that it does not appear to be serious and nor does he opine that the condition has been caused by work.  The best he can say is that the applicant’s work may have made a material contribution, or there may have been a contribution to the aggravation of the underlying condition, which is presumably rheumatoid arthritis. 

8.      I have to make a determination on the balance of probabilities whether there has been a material contribution made to the development of the osteoarthritis condition, if the condition in fact exists, by the applicant’s workplace. 

9.      It seems to me the balance of the medical evidence is clearly in favour of a condition of rheumatoid arthritis which accounts for the applicant’s symptoms.  While there may have been some osteoarthritic change in the knees and the upper joints, it is not clear that they are causing the pain the applicant currently suffers, or has been suffering.  That appears to be accounted for almost entirely by the rheumatoid arthritis, which is running its ordinary course.  There is no real evidence I can point to, notwithstanding the speculation of Dr Smith, that suggests anything the applicant did in his workplace ultimately had any connection with the development, if it is in fact so, of osteoarthritis.

10.     In all the circumstances, it seems to me the applicant’s claim cannot succeed and the decision under review must be affirmed.

I certify that the 10 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Bernard J McCabe.

Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate:     Stephen O’Grady

Date of Hearing  30 April 2007
Date of Oral Decision                30 April 2007
Date of Written Reasons          27 July 2007
The applicant was represented by Mr Darryl Quigley, solicitor.

The respondent was represented by Mr Ben Dube, solicitor.