Wright and Australian Postal Corporation

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 436

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No W2002/117 and W2003/143

GENERAL  ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		BRUCE WRIGHT

Applicant

And AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr M Allen, Member

Date3 May 2004

PlacePerth

Decision

The decision of the Tribunal is that:

(a)     In matter W2002/117 the reviewable decision made on 11 February 2002 (affirming the determination of 11 December 2001 to cease liability under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998) is set aside.  The determination of 11 December 2001 to accept liability in respect of epicondylitis of the left elbow remains.  The respondent shall pay the costs of this matter incurred by the applicant to be determined in accordance with the Tribunal’s General Practice Direction.

(b)      In matter W2003/143 the Tribunal affirms the decision made on 7 March 2003.

............(sgd M Allen)......................

Member

but does not include any such disease, injury or aggravation suffered by an employee as a result of reasonable disciplinary action taken against the employee or failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with his or her employment.

"disease" means:

(a) any ailment suffered by an employee; or

(b) the aggravation of any such ailment;

being an ailment or an aggravation that was contributed to in a material degree by the employee's employment by the Commonwealth or a licensed corporation.

"ailment" means any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development).

“impairment” means the loss, the loss of the use, or the damage or malfunction, of any part of the body or of any bodily system or function or part of such system or function.

15.     Under s 16 of the Act the respondent would be liable to pay the costs of reasonable treatment obtained in relation to an injury.  Under s 19 the respondent would be liable to pay to the applicant, if he is incapacitated for work as a result of an injury, weekly payments of compensation.

16.     Although the applicant contended that he was entitled to be compensated pursuant to ss 14, 16 and 19 of the Act in both proceedings, no specific claims had, at the time of the two reviewable decisions or since, been made under ss 16 or 19 and no decisions made to reject any such claims.  The applicant’s final written submissions (at para 12) state that the applicant seeks acceptance of liability to enable him “…to accommodate work restrictions…and medical and other expenses which he has incurred”.

The left elbow

17. The determination of 11 December 2001 set out at [9] above, after accepting liability, purported on the one hand to “cease liability” under s 14 in relation to weekly compensation and medical treatment but, on the other hand, left open the possibility of future claims under s 16 in respect of medical expenses. The acceptance of liability must be taken to be an acknowledgement that…