Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 JANUARY 2009

Causal Connection Required To Establish An ‘Injury’

Dufty and Comcare [2008] AATA 1011 and Monti and Australian Postal Corporation [2008] AATA 878 involved claims for injury which pre-dated the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007 amendments.

AustraliaEmployment and HR
Andrew Klein
Andrew Klein

Dufty and Comcare [2008] AATA 1011 and Monti and Australian Postal Corporation [2008] AATA 878 involved claims for injury which pre-dated the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007 amendments.

The 'material contribution' test set out in Comcare v Sahu-Khan (2007) 156 FCR 536 therefore applied in both cases to the level of causation required for an 'injury' to be established under section 4(1) (as it was then) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act).

Both cases provide a useful indication of the kind of medical evidence the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) requires to be satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the requisite causal connection exists.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from