ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from dismissal of appeal from decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Tribunal decision that applicant not entitled to compensation under ss 16 and 29 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – whether Tribunal erred in law in determining that it had no jurisdiction to consider a nature and conditions claim - whether Tribunal had properly construed claim - whether claim was for an injury on a specific date or whether claim was a “nature and conditions” claim – relevance of previous and subsequent events to construction of claim - whether there had been a denial of procedural fairness
Abrahams v Comcare (2006) 93 ALD 147 Sellick v Australian Postal Corporation (2009) 113 ALD 58
Date of hearing:
31 July 2012
Place:
Sydney
Division:
GENERAL DIVISION
Category:
Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:
65
Counsel for the appellant:
Mr LT Grey and Ms CM Spain
Solicitor for the appellant:
Rishworth Dodd & Co
Counsel for the respondent:
Mr T Howe QC and Mr D Richards
Solicitor for the respondent:
DibbsBarker
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 259 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
LAZLO SZABO Appellant
AND:
COMCARE Respondent
JUDGES:
EMMETT, BENNETT AND GREENWOOD JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
7 september 2012
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 259 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
LAZLO SZABO Appellant
AND:
COMCARE Respondent
JUDGES:
EMMETT, BENNETT AND GREENWOOD JJ
DATE:
7 September 2012
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
EMMETT AND GREENWOOD JJ
This appeal is concerned with the question of whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) misconceived its jurisdiction in determining a proceeding before it. The proceeding related to a claim by the appellant, Mr Lazlo Szabo, for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the Compensation Act). Mr Szabo contends that the Tribunal erred in affirming a review decision made by the respondent, Comcare, in which Comcare affirmed a determination that Mr Szabo is no longer entitled to further compensation under the Compensation Act. This appeal is from an order made by a judge of the Court dismissing an appeal by Mr Szabo under s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal…
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.
Continue reading Szabo v Comcare
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Szabo v Comcare [2012] FCAFC 129
Case
[2012] FCAFC 129
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The decision in Szabo v Comcare involved a claim for workers' compensation by Mr Szabo, who alleged that his current back condition was the result of injuries suffered during his employment. Comcare, the respondent, had previously denied compensation on the grounds that Mr Szabo's condition was primarily due to a pre-existing degenerative condition aggravated by his 1985 injury. The dispute was escalated to the Tribunal by Mr Szabo, who sought a review of Comcare's decision. Mr Szabo contended that he suffered a further injury on 20 June 1990, leading to his current restrictions and that his pre-existing condition was exacerbated by this injury. Comcare, on the other hand, argued that Mr Szabo had already been compensated for his back injury, including any aggravations, and that his current symptoms were a progression of the 1985 injury.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Szabo's current condition was a result of the 1985 injury or if there had been a further injury on 20 June 1990 that warranted additional compensation. Another significant issue was whether the Tribunal correctly interpreted Mr Szabo's claim form and whether the process denied him procedural fairness. The court had to consider the medical evidence presented, including expert opinions on the progression and causation of Mr Szabo's back condition.
The court found that the medical evidence supported Comcare's position that Mr Szabo's current condition was primarily due to the progression of his pre-existing degenerative disc disease, aggravated by his 1985 injury. The court dismissed Mr Szabo's argument that he suffered a further injury on 20 June 1990, concluding that any aggravation at that time was temporary and did not constitute a new injury. The court also rejected the argument that the Tribunal had misconceived its jurisdiction or denied procedural fairness, finding that the claim form was properly understood and that the Tribunal's reasoning was sound.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal with costs, affirming the Tribunal's decision that Mr Szabo's claim for additional compensation was not substantiated. The court's ruling was based on the medical evidence and the interpretation of the claim form, finding no grounds for a reversal of the Tribunal's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
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
On 7 January 2009, Comcare affirmed the decision of 13 June 2008. In the reasons given for affirming the decision, reference was made to medical evidence to the effect that Mr Szabo’s then current condition was the result primarily of his pre-existing degenerative condition, which was made symptomatic as a result of the 1985 Injury. Medical evidence indicated that there were further aggravations of the 1985 Injury but no specific further injury. The reasons said that any aggravation incurred in employment was a temporary aggravation and that Mr Szabo’s current condition was a result of the progression of his degenerative disc disease. THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION On 12 February 2009, Mr Szabo filed an application for a review by the Tribunal of the decision of 7 January 2009. Mr Szabo’s statement of facts, issues and contentions filed with the Tribunal on 8 June 2010, relevantly for present purposes, said as follows:FACTS3.Mr Szabo first injured his back on 24 September 1985.5.Mr Szabo commenced work with AQIS on 30 September 1988.7.Mr Szabo suffered a strain to his spine on 20 June 1989.8.A determination was made on 3 August 1989 accepting liability for aggravation of a pre-existing lower back strain.12.A determination was made on 13 June 2008 that compensation was not payable pursuant to ss 16 and 29 of the Compensation Act.ISSUESMr Szabo was fit for normal duties as at 3 October 1988.Mr Szabo suffered a further injury to his spine on 20 June 1990.Mr Szabo underwent a lumbar discogram on 16 October 1990 and a spinal fusion on 4 February 1991.Mr Szabo’s current work and domestic restrictions are causally related to his injury on 20 June 1989 and subsequent surgery. Comcare’s amended statement of facts, issues and contentions filed with the Tribunal on 6 October 2010 (Comcare’s Statement) described the nature of Mr Szabo’s application to the Tribunal as concerning a claim for compensation for a lower back injury that Mr Szabo alleged was caused while working for the Victorian Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs at the premises of MC Herd on 24 September 1985, which was aggravated while working for AQIS on 20 June 1989. Comcare’s Statement asserted that Mr Szabo did not claim that his current symptoms commenced de novo on or about 20 June 1989 but that they constituted an aggravation of the 1985 Injury. Comcare’s Statement set out in some considerable detail the medical history on the files of Comcare. It asserted that there was little, if any, evidence to support Mr Szabo’s claim that he had suffered anything more than a minor aggravation to his back condition on 20 June 1989 and that, in any event, he had been compensated for his back injury, the subsequent surgery and any residual symptoms in the settlement of 4 February 1992. Comcare’s Statement asserted that Mr Szabo had recovered state workers’ compensation in respect of his entire lower back injury and that compensation was no longer payable. Comcare’s Statement contended that, in the alternative, the medical reports and correspondence regarding the settlement indicated that Mr Szabo recovered compensation for the entire effect of the 1985 Injury, which included any aggravation leading up to the settlement and the subsequent surgery in 1991.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
The further back pain suffered by Mr Szabo was, as the Tribunal found and her Honour accepted, a result of the earlier 1985 injury, for which he had already been compensated.Consideration I agree with the reasoning of the primary judge as to the construction of the claim form. I am not satisfied that the claim form, properly understood, extends beyond a claim for a specific injury that occurred on 20 June 1989, which injury was caused by the actions set out in answer to question 3 of the claim form. It is a claim for an injury that occurred on that date. It follows that previous and subsequent events and injuries were not relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of the reviewable decision. I accept that Mr Szabo was not legally qualified and that the claim form should be construed beneficially to him, but he had received legal advice before completing the claim form. The questions and answers in the claim form are clear and consistent with the injury report that he had earlier completed and submitted. I agree with Emmett and Greenwood JJ’s conclusion that Mr Szabo’s contention that the Tribunal denied him procedural fairness is misconceived. The Tribunal did not misconceive its jurisdiction, nor did it deny Mr Szabo procedural fairness. The primary judge was not in error. I agree with the orders proposed by Emmett and Greenwood JJ.