Stephens and Australian Postal Corporation - [2011] AATA 824

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 824
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No: 2010/1492

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) No: 2011/1670

Re LARRY STEPHENS

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member
Dr I S Alexander, Member
Date21 November 2011
PlaceSydney

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.
....................[sgd]........................
Ms N Isenberg
Senior Member

5.Application 2011/1670 (the second matter):
·Whether Mr Stephens sustained a 'musculo ligamentous injury to the lumbar spine' on 3 December 2009 and, if so, whether the injury was only a temporary one and came to an end no later than 8 January 2010;
·Whether from 8 January 2010, and as at the current date, the injury has resulted in incapacity for work, or impairment or the need for medical treatment, and if so, whether Mr Stephens is entitled to compensation under sections 16 and 19 of the SRC Act in relation to the injury;
·Whether Australia Post is liable to pay compensation to Mr Stephens under section 14 of the SRC Act for a degenerative condition of the lumbar spine or for any aggravation of any degenerative condition of the lumbar spine sustained on 3 December 2009;
·Whether section 7(7) of the SRC Act applies to disallow Mr Stephens’ claim for back injury, being a disease, arising out of his employment with Australia Post and whether section 7(7) applies to disallow Mr Stephens compensation for a degenerative condition of the lumbar spine or for any aggravation of any degenerative condition of the lumbar spine sustained on 3 December 2009.

6. It was agreed that the issues for determination in the first matter were subsumed by those in the second.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
7. The relevant legislation in this matter is the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, in particular:
8. Section 4(9):
A reference in this Act to an incapacity for work is a reference to an incapacity suffered by an employee as a result of an injury, being:
(a) an incapacity to engage in any work; or
(b) an incapacity to engage in work at the same level at which he or she was engaged by the Commonwealth or a licensed corporation in that work or any other work immediately before the injury happened.

9. Section 7(7):
A disease suffered by an employee, or an aggravation of such a disease, shall not be taken to be an injury to the employee for the purposes of this Act if the employee has at any time, for purposes connected with his or her employment or proposed employment by the Commonwealth or a licensed corporation, made a wilful and false representation that he or she did not suffer, or had not previously suffered, from that disease.

10. Section 14:
Compensation for injuries
(1) Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.

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 Stephens and Australian Postal Corporation 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: [2011] AATA 824
Decision Date: 21 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stephens versus the Australian Postal Corporation involved a dispute concerning the classification of an injury as temporary or permanent under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The applicant, Stephens, sought compensation for injuries sustained during employment, with a focus on whether the injury or its aggravation was temporary. The case was heard and determined by the relevant tribunal.

The central legal issues that the tribunal had to decide were whether the injury sustained by Stephens was temporary or permanent, and if the aggravation of a pre-existing injury could be classified as temporary. These determinations were pivotal in assessing the compensation to which Stephens was entitled under the Act.

The tribunal, after careful consideration of the evidence and the applicable provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, found that the decisions under review were correct. It held that the injury, along with the aggravation of the pre-existing condition, did not constitute a permanent injury. The tribunal's reasoning was based on the statutory definitions and the specific circumstances of the case, which did not meet the criteria for a permanent injury classification. Consequently, the tribunal affirmed the decisions that were under review.

No additional orders were made by the tribunal, as it found the decisions already made were appropriate and in accordance with the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

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		) No: 2011/1670
Re		LARRY STEPHENS