Comcare v Roser [2003] FCA 243

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Concerning Lump Sum Permanent Impairment Compensation Under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1. 1 ['Whether impairments flowing from discrete injuries suffered at different times may be combined under Table 14.1 of the Comcare Guide to produce a single whole person impairment percentage.' "Whether s 24(7) of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) precludes compensation for the respondent's back condition assessed at less than 10% whole person impairment." "Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the respondent's permanent impairment at 24% by combining the 20% bilateral knee impairment and the 5% back impairment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The bilateral knee condition and the back condition arose from separate incidents and gave rise to discrete liabilities under s 24 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). Table 14.1 of the Comcare Guide did not permit impairments from those separate injuries to be combined into a single 24% whole person impairment for compensation purposes. Because the back injury produced only a 5% whole person impairment, s 24(7) precluded compensation for that injury.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal allowed in part; Administrative Appeals Tribunal determinations set aside; no order as to costs.

Orders

• ['The appeal be allowed, and the cross-appeal be allowed in part.' 'The determinations of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of 29 May 2002 be set aside.' 'There be no order as to costs.']