Thyer and Comcare

[2005] AATA 281

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 281

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No S2003/125 & S2004/120

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		MATTHEW SEAN THYER

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member WJF Purcell
Dr ET Eriksen (Member)

Date11 March 2005

PlaceAdelaide

Decision The Tribunal sets aside the first decision under review (S2003/125), and substitutes a decision that:
(a)      During the period 8 November 2001 to 3 December 2002, the applicant is entitled to compensation in respect of the condition of tenosynovitis/synovitis pursuant to ss 16 and 19 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
(b)      Comcare is liable to pay compensation to the applicant in relation to the upper arm conditions of epicondylitis of the elbows, and tendonitis of the wrists, as and from 3 December 2002.
(c)       Comcare shall pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings, such costs in the absence of agreement to be taxed by the Registrar or a District Registrar of the Tribunal.
In relation to the second decision under review (S2004/120), the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

(Signed)

WJF PURCELL
  (Senior Member)

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – claims for continuing liability and permanent impairment – synovitis and tenosynovitis bilateral – injuries resulting in incapacity – ongoing entitlement – medical expenses – first decision set aside – second decision affirmed

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 14, 16, 19, 24, 27

Rosillo v Telstra Corporation Limited [2003] FCA 1628

Pisani and Comcare [2004] AATA 441

REASONS FOR DECISION

11 March 2005   Senior Member WJF Purcell
  Dr ET Eriksen (Member)

1.      This is an application for review of two decisions of the respondent (Comcare).  The first, dated 28 February 2003, affirmed a determination of 4 December 2002, that on and from 3 December 2002, Comcare was no longer liable to pay compensation to the applicant in relation to his accepted condition of “synovitis and tenosynovitis (bilateral)” which occurred on 8 November 2001 (the first determination).  The second, dated 5 April 2004, affirmed a determination of 19 March 2004, that the applicant was not entitled to compensation in respect of a claim for permanent impairment, pursuant to s 24 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act), for “bilateral synovitis and tenosynovitis” (the second determination).

2. The evidence before the Tribunal comprised the documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the T documents) and supplementary documents, together with exhibits tendered by the parties.  The applicant, who was represented by Ms Chambers, gave oral evidence, and called Dr B Rositano, his treating General Practitioner, Dr D Cullum, Consultant Occupational Physician, and Dr W Hill, Rheumatologist, as witnesses.  Mr Cole appeared as counsel for Comcare, which called Dr M Awerbuch, Consultant Physician in Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rheumatology, as a witness.

3.      The applicant, who is 37 years of age, was born in Melbourne, and moved to South Australia as a child.  He completed a Bachelor of Applied Science in Computer Studies at…