Tsartas and CSL Ltd - [2012] AATA 485

[2012] AATA 485

Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

File Number

2011/4560

Re

Con TSARTAS

APPLICANT

And

CSL LIMITED

RESPONDENT

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

Tribunal
Mr John Handley, Senior Member

Date 27 July 2012

Place Melbourne
The Tribunal denies the respondent's request to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 33(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to direct the applicant to provide to the respondent with a Medicare list recording the names of his treating medical practitioners.
(sgd) John Handley
Senior Member
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – request by respondent to direct applicant to apply for and provide to the respondent a list of treating medical practitioners – whether basis for request speculative – whether information sought is in relation to the proceeding – request denied.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
Health Insurance Act 1973
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986
Re Rayson and Repatriation Commission (2009) 109 ALD 168
Re Woodhouse and Comcare (2007) 98 ALD 462
Re Flanagan and Comcare [2011] AATA 446
REASONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECISION
Mr John Handley, Senior Member

On 19 July 2012 in the course of a Telephone Directions Hearing, Mr Clarke, on behalf of the respondent sought a direction pursuant to s 33(2A)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the Act) to require the applicant to obtain a list of the medical practitioners that treated him during the six year period prior to the date of an injury that he suffered while he was employed with the respondent. Mr Clarke requested that he obtain the list from Medicare and provide it to the respondent.
At the conclusion of the directions hearing, I refused the application and gave reasons for doing so. The respondent has requested written reasons.
These reasons have been provided pursuant to the combined effect of s 11 and s 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Section 43(2A) of the Act compels provision of a statement in writing of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision. I did not make a decision. I made a direction.
On 10 February 2010, the applicant suffered acoustic and associated trauma bilaterally while employed with the respondent. The documents lodged by the respondent pursuant to s 37 of the Act indicate that the applicant was working as a chemist in its Bioplasma Division in Camp Road, Broadmeadows. The circumstances of the injury are not relevant to these reasons, save that it would appear that an explosion occurred in close proximity to him.
The respondent has accepted liability for acoustic injuries to both ears pursuant to s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act). The decision under review is a denial of liability, pursuant to s 19 (2) of the SRC Act, following a return to work by the applicant on a different shift, the consequence being a reduction in his earnings.
In his claim for compensation (T8), the applicant denied having had

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 Tsartas and CSL Ltd

Details

AGLC: Tsartas and CSL Ltd [2012] AATA 485
Case: [2012] AATA 485
Decision Date: 27 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tsartas and CSL Ltd, the primary dispute involved a request by the respondent for the applicant to provide a list of their treating medical practitioners. The matter was brought before the court to determine the validity and appropriateness of the respondent's request under the circumstances. The court was tasked with assessing whether the respondent's basis for the request was speculative and if the information sought was directly related to the proceeding. The court considered these aspects to decide if the request should be granted or denied.

The court identified that the respondent's request for the applicant to provide a list of treating medical practitioners was speculative and lacked a concrete foundation. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the information sought was relevant and necessary for the proceedings. The court analysed the nature of the information requested and its connection to the matter at hand. It examined whether the information would serve any purpose in resolving the dispute or was simply extraneous to the issues being litigated.

Upon reviewing the arguments and evidence presented, the court concluded that the respondent's request was indeed speculative. The information sought was not deemed directly related to the proceeding, and thus, the court deemed it unnecessary to compel the applicant to provide such a list. The court found that the respondent's request was not justified under the circumstances presented. Consequently, the court denied the respondent's request, ruling that the applicant was not required to furnish a list of treating medical practitioners.

The court's decision was clear and decisive, affirming that the respondent's request was speculative and the information sought was not pertinent to the proceeding. The final orders of the court were to deny the respondent's request and to instruct that no such list be provided. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that requests within legal proceedings are both substantiated and relevant to the issues at hand.

Orders