Weston and Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review by the Applicant, Mr. Weston, against decisions made by Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The dispute arose from a workers' compensation claim following a motor vehicle accident on 30 March 2015, which resulted in a left shoulder injury. While initial liability for temporary aggravation of bursitis and rotator cuff strain was accepted, subsequent decisions by the Respondent rejected the Applicant's claim for compensation for proposed surgery under sections 16 and 19 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act). The case was heard by Deputy President Boyle of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it had jurisdiction to review the Respondent's decisions, and whether the proposed surgery constituted reasonable medical treatment for the Applicant's injury. The Respondent raised several jurisdictional challenges, including the correct identification of the reviewable decision and its date. The Tribunal was required to determine if the decisions under review were indeed "reviewable decisions" as defined by the SRC Act and the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975*.

Deputy President Boyle reasoned that the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction under section 64 of the SRC Act. This was based on the finding that the Respondent's determination of 5 January 2017, which rejected liability for compensation under sections 16 and 19, effectively reconsidered and reversed the Respondent's earlier determination of 8 May 2015 that had accepted such liability. The Tribunal found that despite some inaccuracies in the application form regarding the date of the decision, the Respondent clearly understood the substance of the matter and the relevant decision being challenged. The Tribunal adopted a practical and sensible approach, consistent with the objectives of the AAT Act, to ensure accessibility and efficiency in the review process.

The Tribunal set aside the Respondent's decisions and substituted its own determination. It found that the proposed surgery was reasonable medical treatment and that the Respondent was liable to pay compensation in accordance with sections 16 and 19 of the SRC Act.