Stancevska and Comcare (Compensation) [2023] AATA 15 (12 January 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2018/7330
2018/7331
2018/7332
Re:Ms Snezana Stancevska
APPLICANT
AndComcare
RESPONDENT
Decision
Tribunal:Ms A E Burke, AO Member
Date:12 January 2023
Place:Melbourne
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that Ms Stancevska is entitled to compensation for her claimed injuries of cervical spondylosis and carpal tunnel syndrome pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act.
...................[sgd].....................................................
Ms A E Burke, AO Member
Catchwords
WORKER’S COMPENSATION –printers assistant – note printing Australia – denial of liability – whether injury is work related – conflicting medical evidence – decision set aside
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases
Australian Postal Corporation v Burch (1998) 85 FCR 264
Canute v Comcare (2006) 226 CLR 535
Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439
Comcare v Power (2015) 238 FCR 187
Cross and Comcare [2018] AATA 52
Crouch and Comcare [2013] AATA 608
Dunstan v Comcare [2011] FCAFC 108
Kennedy Cleaning Services Pty Ltd v Petkoska (2000) 200 CLR 286
Mellor v Australian Postal Corporation [2009] FCA 504
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May (2016) 257 CLR 468
Reardon and Comcare [2015] AATA 360
Ross and Comcare [2020] AATA 4350
Smith v Comcare [2013] FCAFC 65Vo and Comcare [2005] AATA 773
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms A E Burke, AO Member
12 January 2023
The Applicant, Ms Stancevska, applied for review of a decision by the Comcare Review Officer dated 6 August 2018 which denied liability for compensation under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act). The determination denied liability for Ms Stancevska’s claimed conditions of cervical disc prolapse with radiculopathy, an unspecified right shoulder condition, bilateral wrist condition and aggravation of bilateral wrists conditions, as they found the evidence did not demonstrate that they were contributed to, to a significant degree, by her employment at Note Printing Australia (NPA).
On 5 October 2018 Ms Stancevska sought review of that decision by the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, stating that she disagreed with the decision in fact and law and her worker’s compensation claim should be accepted.
BACKGROUND
Ms Stancevska commenced working at NPA on 28 April 2014, first in a casual position in the finishing department in a packaging role, and in November 2015 she moved to an ongoing full-time role in the Print Hall as a Printer G5/ Print Hall Operator/ Print Assistant. She was terminated by NPA on 8 August 2019 on the basis that she was unable and unlikely to be able to perform her permanent position. Prior to working for NPA, Ms Stancevska worked in security for Coles for about two years and then worked for 17 years at The Age newspaper as a machine operator in the print centre until her position was made redundant. Ms Stancevska commenced at NPA three days after she was made redundant by The Age.
On…
Continue reading Stancevska and Comcare (Compensation)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Stancevska and Comcare (Compensation) [2023] AATA 15
- Case
- [2023] AATA 15
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Stancevska had suffered an injury or disease, and if so, whether her employment at Note Printing Australia (NPA) contributed to that condition or its aggravation to a significant degree. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider if she had suffered an injury other than a disease, and if that injury arose out of, or in the course of, her employment with NPA. If either of these questions were answered affirmatively, the Tribunal then had to decide if Comcare was liable to pay compensation.
The Tribunal considered conflicting medical evidence and Ms Stancevska's account of events, including an incident on 30 January 2017 where she was bumped by a co-worker, and a fall on 6 February 2017. Ms Stancevska reported experiencing pain in her right shoulder following the bumping incident, and further injury to her right knee, right shoulder, and arm after the fall. She also described developing numbness in her hands and experiencing pain in her wrists and restricted neck movement over time, which medical investigations later identified as right C7 nerve root impingement. The Tribunal found that Ms Stancevska's employment at NPA contributed to her conditions to a significant degree.
The Tribunal set aside the original decision under review and substituted a new decision finding that Ms Stancevska is entitled to compensation for her claimed injuries of cervical spondylosis and carpal tunnel syndrome pursuant to section 14 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth).
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.