Trevan and ADI Limited - [2005] AATA 891

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 891
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Nº V2004/393
Nº V2005/94
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

Re: MARY ELLEN TREVAN
Applicant
And:ADI LIMITED
Respondent

DECISION
Tribunal: G.D. Friedman, Senior Member
Date:14 September 2005
Place:Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and substitutes a decision that the respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant for injury to her right index finger from 16 July 2001 to the date of this decision.

(sgd) G.D. Friedman
Senior Member

COMPENSATION - pain in right index finger - psoriatic arthritis - repetitive work - whether work-related - whether aggravation
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 s 14(1)
Rosillo v Telstra Corporation Limited (2003) 77 ALD 396
REASONS FOR DECISION
14 September 2005  G.D. Friedman, Senior Member
1.      This is an application by Mary Ellen Trevan (the applicant) for review of a decision of a delegate of ADI Limited (the respondent) dated 12 February 2004 (V2004/393). The delegate affirmed a determination of the respondent dated 20 November 2003 to disallow a second claim for compensation for partial medial ligament tear right index finger. The applicant also lodged an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the respondent dated 3 February 2005 (V2005/94). The delegate affirmed a determination of the respondent dated 13 October 2004 to disallow a claim for rehabilitation and compensation for an injury to the right index finger including medial ligament injury, aggravation of psoriatic arthritis, and synovitis/tenosynovitis.
2.      At the hearing on 11 February 2005, 9 June 2005 and 30 August 2005 Mr M. Carey of counsel represented the applicant and Mr J. Lenczner of counsel represented the respondent.
3.      The Tribunal received into evidence the documents lodged under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1-T46) (V2004/393) and (T1-T12) (V2005/94) and five exhibits (Exhibits R1-R5) lodged by the respondent.
BACKGROUND
4.      The applicant was born on 18 October 1947 and joined the respondent in 1981 as a production employee in Footscray, carrying out duties involved in the manufacture of ammunition, cartridges, shells and cases for a range of weapons. In 1984 the respondent re-located to Benalla, and the applicant and her family moved there.
5.      On 9 July 2000 the applicant was working in the powder loading room and was engaged in placing reject cartridges into a round gauge to test their suitability for further use. At the end of the day she noticed that her right index finger was swollen, and the next day she reported soreness in the finger. She attended her general practitioner, who referred her for physiotherapy.
6.      On 9 August 2000 the applicant suffered further injury to her right index finger and her left elbow when she fell to the floor when attempting to sit on a chair (the chair incident). On 30 October 2000 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for partial medial ligament tear right index finger. On 23 November 2000 the respondent accepted liability and paid…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Trevan and ADI Limited 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: [2005] AATA 891
Decision Date: 14 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mary Ellen Trevan, the applicant, sought review of decisions by ADI Limited, the respondent, which disallowed her claims for compensation for injury to her right index finger. The applicant alleged that her injury was caused by repetitive work activities and was aggravated by a fall from a chair. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with deciding whether the applicant's psoriatic arthritis was a pre-existing condition and if the temporary aggravation of this condition ceased by 16 July 2001. The AAT considered evidence from medical practitioners, the applicant's supervisor, and the applicant herself. The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from pre-existing psoriatic arthritis, and any aggravation of her condition from her work activities ceased by 16 July 2001. Therefore, the AAT set aside the respondent's decisions and substituted its decision that the respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant for injury to her right index finger from 16 July 2001 to the date of the decision. The applicant was not entitled to an order for costs.

Orders