Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 114
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2009/0598
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re LAZLO SZABO Applicant
And
COMCARE
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member Date22 February 2011
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
................[sgd]..............................
Ms G Ettinger
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – meat inspector – lumbar spine injury followed by aggravations – legal argument regarding transfer of worker from State jurisdiction to AQIS (Federal) overseeing meat inspection since 1988 – Applicant received workers compensation re injury to L5/S1 disc prolapse in 1985 – damages payout from State of Victoria in 1992 – aggravations to vulnerable spine – 1989 aggravation subject of this claim – Respondent held that effect of 1989 aggravation was no longer current since 2008 – decision under review affirmed.
Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 s 99
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 14, 16, 29, 48, 118
Australian Postal Corporation v Sellick (2008) 101 ALD 245
Canute v Comcare (2006) 226 CLR 535
Re Butler and Australian Postal Corporation (AAT 8394, 27 November 1992)
Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FCR 316
REASONS FOR DECISION
22 February 2011 Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
SUMMARY
1. Mr Lazlo Szabo commenced work in 1979 with the Victorian Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs as a meat inspector. On 24 September 1985, aged 27, during the course of his work, and while bending over a mobile table pulling at a cow’s intestines, Mr Szabo suffered an injury to his back. Mr Szabo was taken to hospital by ambulance, and liability was accepted for the injury by his employer.
2. In 1986, Mr Szabo filed a claim against the State of Victoria and M C Herd Pty Ltd (Herds), in the County Court of Victoria seeking damages for the injuries he suffered. This resulted in a settlement, and payment of damages of $115,000 on 4 February 1992. There was argument between the parties at the Tribunal as to whether the settlement covered only the injury to Mr Szabo’s spine on 24 September 1985, or whether it included aggravations until the date of settlement of the claim, in particular the incident of 20 June 1989, subject of this claim.
3. Following the 1985 incident, Mr Szabo suffered several aggravations to his back, consulted many doctors, had time off work, and underwent various procedures, including a chemonucleolysis of the L5/S1 disc in May 1988, an intra-disc steroid injection in May 1990, and a spinal fusion in February 1991. He also underwent hip replacements in 2007 and 2008, which were not compensable.
4. On 30 September 1988, Mr Szabo joined the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, (AQIS), the Federal organisation which had by then become responsible for meat inspection nationally. He had been cleared as fit for fulltime work by Dr Roberts of the Health Department of Victoria on 3 October 1988. After some time, Mr Szabo was offered a voluntary redundancy which took…
Continue reading Szabo and Comcare
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Szabo and Comcare [2011] AATA 114
- Case
- [2011] AATA 114
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for the 1989 aggravation of the lumbar spine injury, and whether the effects of this aggravation were still current as of the date of the decision. The Tribunal also had to consider the argument that the transfer of meat inspection oversight from the State jurisdiction to AQIS (Federal) in 1988 should have implications for the current dispute over compensation. The applicant argued that the transfer should not negate their entitlement to compensation for injuries sustained prior to the transfer, while the respondent contended that the transfer had severed the connection between the pre-existing injury and the subsequent aggravation.
In determining the matter, the Tribunal examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It found that the aggravation of the lumbar spine injury in 1989 was a consequence of the applicant's employment as a meat inspector. However, the Tribunal concluded that the effects of this aggravation were no longer current as of 2008, thereby affirming the decision under review and dismissing the applicant's claim for compensation for the 1989 aggravation. The Tribunal held that the transfer of oversight to AQIS did not impact the resolution of the current dispute regarding the applicant's entitlement to compensation.
The Tribunal's final order was to affirm the decision under review, dismissing the applicant's claim for compensation for the aggravation of the lumbar spine injury in 1989. The Tribunal did not make any further orders regarding the applicant's entitlement to compensation for other aspects of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal affirms the decision 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.