Steele and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of a decision made by Comcare on 25 May 2017. This decision affirmed Comcare's earlier determination of 3 April 2017, which found that Comcare had no present liability to pay the Applicant compensation for medical expenses or incapacity payments under sections 16 and 19 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act). The central issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed jurisdiction to review this decision, particularly in light of the Tribunal's prior decision in *Lock and Comcare* [2018] AATA 2386.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine its jurisdiction to review Comcare's decision of 25 May 2017. This required an assessment of whether the decision constituted a "reviewable decision" for the purposes of section 64 of the SRC Act, which limits the Tribunal's jurisdiction to reviewing decisions made under section 62 of the SRC Act. The Applicant argued that the facts of this case were indistinguishable from those in *Lock and Comcare*, where the Tribunal had found a lack of jurisdiction in relation to one of the claims.

Deputy President Boyle P reasoned that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 64 of the SRC Act is confined to reviewing "reviewable decisions," as defined by section 60 of the SRC Act, which primarily refers to decisions made under section 62. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from *Lock and Comcare* by noting that in *Lock*, a key element for jurisdiction was absent because no prior relevant determination of liability had been made, nor had a relevant claim for compensation been lodged in relation to the decision sought to be reviewed. In contrast, the present case involved a lodged claim for compensation, an initial determination of liability by Comcare, a subsequent determination of no present liability, a request for reconsideration of that determination, and a decision on that reconsideration, which the Applicant himself described as the "Reviewable Decision." Therefore, all the necessary elements for a reviewable decision under section 64 were present.

The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to review the decision of Comcare dated 25 May 2017. The application for review was therefore permitted to proceed.