4 Sept 2015
The second review merely restated the respondent's prior non-decision/administrative correction concerning carpal tunnel syndrome and there was no evidence linking the appellant's symptoms to a work related gradual process injury, therefore the review decision was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Sept 2009
The Reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction because the incorrect claim number on correspondence did not constitute a 'decision' under s6 and therefore was not reviewable under s134; consequently the District Court must dismiss the appeal under s149 as there is no substantive issue within its jurisdiction.
10 Sept 2008
The Reviewer correctly held the 16 October 2006 letter was advisory and not a decision within s6, so there was no decision capable of review; because the appeal duplicated an earlier appeal on the same issue, the appeal was dismissed.
16 Jun 1998
The Court held there was no reviewable decision because the initial assessment was a purely administrative act that did not affect the claimant's rights; the absence of a written application was a procedural irregularity not warranting a declaration of invalidity and the Court had no statutory power under sections 91 or 92 to declare the assessment void; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.