Tablizo and Australian Postal Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 32 min read

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1565

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2006/691

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION )
Re GLORIA TABLIZO

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms R Hunt, Senior Member
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member

Date20 July 2007

PlaceSydney

Decision

1.        The reviewable decision of 25 May 2006 is set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent with the direction that the applicant is entitled to compensation for the work-caused injury of carpal tunnel syndrome left wrist.

2.      The Respondent is to pay the applicant's costs.

...................[Sgd]...................

Ms R Hunt
  Presiding Member

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION (CORRIGENDUM) [2007] AATA 1565

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2006/691

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION )
Re GLORIA TABLIZO

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION (CORRIGENDUM)

Tribunal Ms R Hunt, Senior Member
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member

Date23 July 2007

PlaceSydney

Decision

3.      The Tribunal published its Decision in this matter, which was dated 20 July 2007.

4. The Tribunal wishes to amend the Decision so as to rectify an error in the printing of the certification stamp of the decision. To do so with the least costs and inconvenience to the parties, the Tribunal exercises its power under s.43AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

5.      Now the Tribunal therefore orders that the certification stamp on the Decision of the Tribunal should read as follows:

I certify that the 75 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Hunt and Member Dr Thorpe 

Signed:         Talaishia Collis
  Associate

Date/s of Hearing  15 – 16 May 2007         
Date of Decision  20 July 2007
Counsel for the Applicant         Mr D. Richards
Solicitor for the Applicant          Mr H. Zreika –

Slater & Gordon Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent     Mr G. Johnston
Solicitor for the Respondent     Mr G. Jones –

Graham Jones Lawyers

...................[Sgd]...................

Ms R Hunt
  Presiding Member

Evidence of Mrs Gloria Tablizo

10.     The applicant’s evidence was that she commenced work with an Australia Post office in 2000. It was her first job in Australia and, as confirmed by her medical examination for the job placement, she had no arm or wrist problems at that time or previously (T4).

11.     Mrs Tablizo’s evidence was that on 5 January 2006 when clearing C5 mail, which is big mail in big envelopes, from the stackers at work she felt an electric shock in the left hand. She said:

I was clearing the jaws – I have to take out the mail. When I was clearing the stackers I felt an electric shock in my left hand.

12.     She could not, on further questioning, exactly recall what she was doing when she felt the electric shock. The electric shock involved all of the hand and, after the shock, the hand felt painful. She indicated, by pointing, that the shock she felt was in the fifth, fourth and third fingers, more on the medial aspect  She…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tablizo 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
[2007] AATA 1565
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tablizo brought a claim against the Australian Postal Corporation seeking compensation for carpal tunnel syndrome in his right wrist, which he argued arose from the nature and conditions of his employment. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondent was liable to make compensation payments for the injury sustained by the applicant. The court had to consider whether the injury was caused by the employment conditions and if so, whether the respondent was legally obligated to provide compensation.

The court examined the evidence and legal precedents, including the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, and considered relevant cases such as Treloar and Australian Telecommunications Commission, Comcare v Shaffaat Ali Sahu-Kahn, Suters v Australian Postal Corporation, Comcare v Canute, and Ngo and Australian Postal Corporation. The court found that the injury to the applicant’s left wrist was not compensable, but the injury to the right wrist was work-caused and compensable. The court set aside the decision of 25 May 2006, which had found the respondent not liable for the injury to the right wrist, and remitted the matter to the respondent with the direction that the applicant is entitled to compensation for the work-caused injury to his right wrist.

The court ordered that the reviewable decision of 25 May 2006 be set aside and the matter be remitted to the respondent with the direction that the applicant is entitled to compensation for the work-caused injury of carpal tunnel syndrome to his right wrist. Additionally, the court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The reviewable decision of 25 May 2006 is set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent with the direction that the applicant is entitled to compensation for the work-caused injury of carpal tunnel syndrome left wrist.

2. The Respondent is to pay the applicant's costs.

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.