Streatfield and Comcare

Case [2007] AATA 72

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 72

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No A2005/332

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION )
Re JOHN STREATFIELD

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member
Dr M. Miller, Member

Date of Decision                22 February 2007

Date of Written Reasons 27 February 2007

PlaceCanberra

Decision

The Tribunal decides that it has jurisdiction to consider, for the purposes of review, alleged injuries that were notified and subject of claim on 17 June 2005. The procedure to be followed in these proceedings is as follows:

(a)       the listed hearing is to be vacated; and

(b)       a telephone directions hearing is to be listed four weeks from today at which a timetable will be set for hearing the matter as soon as possible thereafter.

........(Signed).............

Mr S.Webb, Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION - jurisdiction - liability accepted for injury - claim for medical treatment expenses - intervening events and symptoms - aggravation injuries asserted - scope of notice of injury - claim - powers of Tribunal on review - jurisdiction to consider fresh injury claim

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 14, 16, 53, 54, 60, 62, 64

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s.43

Kuswardana v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 35 ALR 186

Lees v Comcare (1999) 29 AAR 350

Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission (1989) 86 ALR 399

Ward v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2007] FCA 7

Frosch v Comcare [2004] FCA 1642

Lang v Comcare [2007] FCA 47

Telstra Corporation Limited v Barrow (1994) 35 ALD 461

Abrahams v Comcare [2006] FCA 1829

Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia v Minister for Health Housing and Community Services (1992) 111 ALR 1

Canute v Comcare (2006) 229 ALR 445

Plumb v Comcare (1992) 39 FCR 236

Re Liu and Comcare (2004) 79 ALD 119

REASONS FOR DECISION

27 February 2007 Mr S. Webb, Member
Dr M. Miller, Member          

1.        John Streatfield injured his lower back in compensable circumstances in 1993[1].  He claimed[2] and was granted compensation[3], including compensation for medical treatment in the form of physiotherapy treatment.  On 17 June 2005 Mr Streatfield send an email communication to Gaye Worthy, of his employer, stating[4]:

“In response to our meeting on 17/6/05 I am outlining my back injury history as requested.  During my recruit training in 1986 I injured my back during training and reported same, at the time I required no time off work.  On 27/5/93 I re-injured my back at work and required 2-3 weeks off work on workers compensation (Claim No. 140907/01) accepted for lumbar muscles.  Since 1993 I have experienced several periods of back pain which did not require time off work, these periods of pain usually followed shifts involving busy workloads.  On 3rd and 4th May 2005 I was on sick leave with certificate due to back pain.  Since 4/6/05 I have been on sick leave due to back pain.”

[1] T4

[2] T6

[3] T7

[4] T13

On the same…

Continue reading Streatfield and Comcare

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Streatfield and Comcare [2007] AATA 72
Case
[2007] AATA 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Streatfield, was pursuing a claim for medical treatment expenses under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 against Comcare, following an injury that occurred in the course of their employment. The dispute reached the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to review a claim for additional injuries that were not initially included in the original claim. The tribunal was also required to decide if it could consider the applicant's assertion that the initial injuries had been aggravated by subsequent events.

The central legal issue was whether the tribunal had the jurisdiction to consider the new injury claim, which was not within the scope of the original notice of injury. Given that the legislation in question stipulates that claims must be within the scope of the original notice, the tribunal had to assess if the new injury could be considered a fresh claim, which would fall outside their jurisdiction. Additionally, the tribunal had to determine the appropriate procedural steps to take in light of these jurisdictional issues.

The tribunal found that it did have jurisdiction to review the claim for the initial injury, as the new injury did not constitute a fresh claim but rather an extension of the original claim. The tribunal reasoned that the new injury was closely related to the initial injury and therefore fell within the scope of the original notice. As a result, the tribunal set aside the listed hearing and scheduled a telephone directions hearing to establish a timetable for hearing the matter. The tribunal also highlighted the importance of ensuring that all relevant injuries are included in the initial notice to avoid jurisdictional complications.

In summary, the tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction to review the claim for the initial injury and ordered the setting of a new timetable for the proceedings. This decision underscored the necessity for comprehensive initial claims to encompass all related injuries to ensure clarity and efficiency in the review process.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal decides that it has jurisdiction to consider, for the purposes of review, alleged injuries that were notified and subject of claim on 17 June 2005. The procedure to be followed in these proceedings is as follows:

(a) the listed hearing is to be vacated; and

(b) a telephone directions hearing is to be listed four weeks from today at which a timetable will be set for hearing the matter as soon as possible thereafter.

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.