Canute vs MRCC - 24 Feb 2007

Existing Personal Imparement (PI) Decisions

Whilst the determining authority may reconsider pre-Canute decisions on its own motion, there is no requirement that it do so. Previous decisions made under s24 of the Act were made pursuant to what had been accepted to be the correct interpretation of s24. Those decisions were valid at the time they were made and they remain so.

It is possible that employees who have previously had PI claims calculated on the basis of combined impairments will request a reconsideration of that calculation, having regard to Canute.

If the request for consideration is made out of time, the determining authority will need to consider whether it is prepared to extend time. If the reason for the request is the decision in Canute, and the employee does not assert any other relevant change in circumstances the determining authority may decide not to exercise its discretion to extend time for requestion the reconsideration. For example, an employee does not submit medical evidence which adds to the information which was before the primary decision maker or which contradicts the assessment of the degree of PI contained in the determination).

Example

If a person had a couple of different things wrong from a single incident for example: Bomb blast; the veteran may suffer permanent tinnitus, PTSD, hearing loss, vertigo etc. What happened with MCRS before the Canute V Comcare decision was that MCRS would give the veteran say 10% for vertigo and 10% for hearing loss. These %'s would be calculated under the combined values chart put out by MCRS, a lay person would think that 10+10=20% right!.. No, 10+10 DVA% would = 19% so the veteran was only able to get a lump sum of $23,000 approximately for 10% where as 20% would equal $46,000 approximately.

Kenneth Canute vs Comcare - 28 Sep 2006