a "s Bhan Ht Boe n : Camike a ft fy age a wr a tate 4 Sys en cece att oe uel > . - a) 2 Rats at toy *- anna nanan EE AREY BSE MEE ae Ban he Dade CATCHWORDS EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION - Appeai from Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Incapacity for work - Relevance of personality or worker in considering capacity to work - Employment of a kind not commonly availabie - The "odd lot" doctrine - Necessity for Tribunal to consider vossible occupations outside employees previous experience - Inference to be drawn from failure of employer to offer or suggest suitable employment - Whether employee suffering incapacity occasioned by medical treatment. Compensaticn (Commonweaith Government Emplovees) Act 1971, 38.25, 27, 39, 47, 50. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1977 5.44 Andersen v Australian Postal Commmission (1981) 39 ALR 94, Bavcevic v Commonwealth (1957) $8 CLR 296 applied. G:zbson v Commonwealth (AAT No. N84/203, 8 March 1985) discussed. AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v FRANK FINNAN XING G.274 of 1984 WILCOX J 29 MARCH 1985 SYDNEY PG Ere SPREE Stat YS rhe EPL LOS y ES. % ences s ee a IN THE FEDFRAD COURT OF AUSTRADIA ) 4 ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT PEGISTRY ) No. G.274 of 1984 ) GENERAL DIVISTON ) - ~ . \ 1 - - 7 BETWEEN = AUSTRAT TAN TELECOMMUNICATICNE COMMISS=ZCN Appellant AND: FRANK FINNAN KING . RPesrondenz - ORDERS CORAM: AILCOX JT DATS: 29 MARCH 2985 PLACE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: i, The apreal ne dismissed. * 2. The apcellant say to the responcent his costs of cne 4 appeal, 4 : ar ew) ryt IN THE TEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEA SQUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY } No. G.274 of 15984 : ) GENERAL DIVISION ) _ : BETWEEN : AUSTRALIAN - TELE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Appellant AND: FRANK FINNAN KINC Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CORAM: WILCCX J DATE: 29 MARCH 1985 PLACE: SYDNEY This 2s an appeai pursuant to s.44 of tne Acministrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 against a unanimous decision of the Administrative Appeais Tribunal - constituted by Mr 3 O Baliard (Senicr Member), Dr D J Howell and Mrs J H McClintock (Members) - that the respondent, Franx Finnan King, 1s entitlea to the payment of compensation pursuant to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. The respondent left schocl at the age cf 15 years, he then being in second year at high school. In 1967, at tne age o ry 22, ne became employed by the Post Master General, the BE OM RT - * va Maat PRs Soe ee, fag ily xi ' ra ot predecessor cf the apsellant corporation, working as a linesman ng trenches, ciimbin ay and cable joinver. That work invoived digg ladders and going down manholes. In July 1370, ain the course or Ais. employment, the respondent injured his left knee. In January 1972 De M J Walker, arm orthopaedic surgeon, cperated on the knee. He re-aligned <he patelia. Mr King was ctf work for some three montns, during which time he was paid compensation, and then returned to a lighter position - as a lnne fault dispatcher - for In some 12 months. He-returned tc normal linesman's duties but, in climbing a soie, he hurt his leg. Ke was transferred to pillar maintenance work, then to cabl= jointing duties; tnis last work anvelving little climbing work. He was able toa cope with che work, altnoucn witn ccnsiderabie discomfcrt and wits assistance from has worsxmates. Cn 27 June 1979 Dr Walker carried cut a fFurtner operation. In a report the following cay to Dr D Arndt, the responcent's general cractitisner, Dr Walker described what he had found: "Z found that cnly halt the vatellar articular surface remained. This was reascnabl7 healthy but the dastal half of the articular Surface was covered with syncevial pannus ana Was in fact ersdsd, tnis indicates that the vatella was not in sufficient contact with the femoral condyle. aon RSE NE EDs NC Ret Te SRE Tice OG Td PH ot rina PHONE EN Me / Fartbbetying, oF et mae aif tong, wR A vatellectcomy was dcne and the quadriceps expansion with ostectomy of che tibia and Dene graft wedge which was extraordinarily stable. The skin was clesed wichcut any problem anc a plaster cylinder applied. ' rrr arn rn erp a GO A AO Ye A a ee err en: ' e? boa yee se « . 79 y . « SERS hh me apm rh 2 o 4 a . bal 073 EER ET RL EE TO SI Ls NL a thd beta aetna The knee was in plaster for a couple of months but Mr King did not immediately return to work with the avpellant. In October 1979 he was elected to be a State Vice President of his - union, a salaried position permitting him to work from home. He was not required to resign from Telecom and intended eventuaily to return to that employer. In April 1981 My King lost his unicn position. He returned to Telecom but he had various forms cf leave due to him so that he was not required to report for work until March 1983. On 1 March 1983 he cesumed work, performing clerical duties in relation to dockets in the Telecom head office an Gosford. However, these duties required him to sit for prolonged periods. Altnough he was not specificaily forbidden to break off work and move around, his evidence before the Tribunal was that the dockets upon which he was working had to he returned to Sydney each afternoon so that he was under considerable pressure to keep working. Mr King found that his knee sweiled up cons:derably and was extremely painful. He consulted Dr Arndt who certified, on 4 March, that he was unfit for these duties. Mr King did not work between 4 March and 10 March but, cn that latter day, he reported for work again. He worked until 17 March ane then gave up because of the swelling in his knee. In - September 1983 Mr King tried work once again, this time certind pension documents. On this occasion there was no pressure but = the work was allocatea on the basis that 12 was merely for the far ay. Mr King had to report to hospital upon the following day. here is nothing to show that the work would have been available . to him on a continuing basis. Telecom has not offered Mr Xing RTT ae tte ree ce ee ee ee oe ore 7. wT NTE. : ine ee ee ee ee Cone howe re ty So he ere ets 3 Raa Resse aia aa Se EE tee I eas Die SEA Le tee a me this, or any other, work since that one day in September 1935. Nonetheless the arovellant arques that Mr King =s net entitied to compensatzon under the Act. The argument 1s cut upon two bases: that che Tribunal erred in law in finding 1ncapacity and that - a s.39 lump sum payment of compensation having been ™ made 1m 1973 - the Tribunal erred in law in finding cnat th om tase was one covered by s.47 of the Act. a Section 27(1) of <t he Compensation 'Commonwealth =>. Govermment Emplcvees) Act Ll wo 71 prevides that if serscnal injury arising cut of cr in the course of the employment of an employee by che Commcnweaith 1s caused to the emplcyes, the Ccommonwealcih 2s, subtect to the Act, liaple 'to say compensation in resvect of that injury in accordance wita the Act. Secticn 26 proviaes that, for the wursoses cf the provisiors of the Act deaiing with compensaticn, "an employee snail be deemed to be tctaliy incapacitated for work 1f his incapacity 15 such that ne 15 fitted only for employment cf a kind that -s not commonly avazlabie and employment of that <ind 12 not reascnably avarlan_le to ham." The Tribunal heic that Mr King was 'totally incapacitated. The basis fcr that conclusis mn ww 'S 'S oD jo ry uD rt rs re)6) ru] ty yo i) 8, 14, 15, 16, and 17 oF the reasons For The Tribunal's deczrsien: "3. Dr Giuficida is a psyrtniatrist. In his report ne said:- 3 'T Tear however, that despite tne Fl a4 en ne 0ar-0 ahaa anal - een oem eee e+ ee a Sa - - ot a fe Tepe ght EE" TES Es a8 Sry "e ez" 27 eee 3 OL absence cf any clear cut psychiatric disturbance, he shows the inevitable effects of a battle witih rersistent pain and disability. I strongly suspect that this man will never be able to work again in a normal employment situation. Not the least of his difficulties are likely tc be interpersonal ones.' In evidence he said the applicant was not able to work again in normai employment situations. The applicant had been demoralized by events, was despondent and resigned to invalidity; before his accident he had probably only coped marginally in the work situation for interpersonal reascns. This would have been exacerbated by his pain and physical disability and made it more difficult for him to get cn with fellow workers and employers and this would have got worse with each failure of an cperation. Dr Giuffrida did not see the applicant as having a osychologicai condition and he could not offer him treatment. The applicant's symptoms were more consistent with not coping behaviour. This could not be regarded as a disease or illness as such. Dr Guiffrida did not regard psychiatry a relevant discipline for dealing with the appl2cant's problems. ... uw a 14. On Dr Gitffrida's evidence the anvlicant 1s totally incapacitated princivaily because or his personality. While that would not qualify him for the invalid pension... tne test of incapacity for compensation purposes 1s not the same. The test for compensation purposes is loss of wages. .. ." (The Tribunal referred to the words of Dixon J in Williams v Metropol:tan Coal Co Zimited (1946) 76CLR 431 at p 448]. "15. Leaving Dr Giuffrida's evidence on one side for the moment we were impressed by the evidence of Dr Arndt. Notwithstanding that the evidence of a family general practitioner 1s likely to favour an applicant, it 1s clear on these facts that Dr Arnct had an unrivalled knowledge oF the apolicant's knee condition. We are of the view that Dr Arndt did not let his position as family paysician iunfiuence his evidence. om gone renee ot x . sire Ae ee wh EE PE ee 3 aoe Nee - ~~ om pow SEE aeee war Sra Abas Man Side he Jae we ee Re Poe Tea Beavers, aie Re ha oP RO dO ST SRE - - 16. The evidence as ta the impracticebility - 7 of the applicant ohtaining other employment in the Gosford regicn xs significant. 17. AS to the attempts made to settle the applicant in clerical work with Telecom anc 1ts comparison with the activities we saw him perform in the Z1lms we think Dr Arndt's explanation that this man may do things of his own choice in rain which he would not accept where ne was cequirec to do them by cvthers 1s sound. We accept Cr Arnct's evidence of his f2rdings cn examination in Marcn 1533 after the applicant nad tried to do a clerical job with Telecom. The incapacity oF an employes is taxen to have resulted frem an injury 1f whe injury contributed to the incapacity (vara 5(11)(a) of the Act); that orovision, cf course, appiles to any incapacity under tne Act. In assessing tne apolicant's residual caracity fcr work his personality problem nas to be Saken into account. The evidence of Dr auririda seems to us to accord witn that of Dr Arridt and is net challenged cn the eyvicence. The facts of this matter may re contrasted with the facts in Anderson v7 Australian Postal Commission, 33 ALR $4, and Hameiton and Australian Posta? Commission, unreportec, No. V82/51, where the arpiicanz tailed ts seek worx that, it was there held. Ne was able to do. On these facts the applicant did attempt lignt work and soulc not ccpve. Our observaticn or the applicant's activities on the film oreciades a simple finceing of 'total incapacity. However, the applicant's experience of work 2s as an outside labourer and as a trade union official. The former he can no longer = r 12] = do. His personality 15 sucn tnat ne 25 not . fitted Ffsr undsor cierical work. Employment as a trade union official 1s not commoni; . avellasies and employment cr that «inc 2s not reasonably i Sco tne aoplicant. Section 26 reads:- os 'For the ourpose of this Part, an employee shall pe deemec to be . totally incavacitatea For werk if =) hos iumcapacity 2s such that he is . ntctecd only for smeloyvynent cr 2 kand thal 215 net sommcrnly avaiizole anc employment of tnrat kind is not ' reasonably available to nim.' x - On all those facts the applicant is qualified to be deemed totally incapacitated under section 26 of the Act. We so fand and we so deem the applicanc." Counsel for the appellant empicysr attacks these findings on two grounds. Firstly, he says, the evidence comrels the conclusion that the respondent was fit for indoor clerical work and that the Tribunal erred in taking into acccunt what he says 1s an irrelevant consideration, namely the respondent's personality. There 1s evidence to indicate that, from a purely physical roint of view, Mr King may be able to perform careafuliv selected indoor clerical work; although only with difficulty and with greater flexibiiity in work arrangements, especially in being able to break crf work and to move around, than occurred 1 March 1983. But it is not proper to leave out cf account any limitations upon capacity occasicned by the interperscnal difficulties stemming from what Dr Giutfrida called the respondent's "battle with persistent pain and disability". The with the demands of such employment as 18, on the evidence, reasonably available to him. As 1b seems to me, Se approach arguea on behaif of the appellant zs the same as that r tO) Ww i) a co ea 2 Anderson v Australian Postai Commission (1981) 39 ALP 94. In that case the Administrative Appeals Tribural had held that the appellant was not totally incapacitated because he was abi 'S w ct i@) n clerical worx; the Tribunal regarding as irrelevant the " rm i) ra, Be arr ae SER Ee Soe? IT AE ee me. cone ee 4 ~ a se te we . ome gee Ege eye eee ee star pont Daren Ree NN i aa hs UE Bee Sie Te sha REE : -8- - ; appellant's lack of skills and poor jcb prospects. Morling J at r po 99-100 said: , 3 "As I understand the reascns given by the . Tribunal it construed the words 'employment of a kind that is net commonly available' where appearing in s 26 as not comprehenc2 ng a 'class of work which can be identified by t reference to ordinarv classes cf work commonly available to the general run of employee in industry or ccemmerce.' As clerical work 15 a class of work whicn is commonly availabie in industry or commerce and as the Tribunal was of the view that the appeliant was rit for work of a clerical * assistant, ic foune his case was not within the section. I+ acpears toc have cegardec the appellant's lack of skills and pocr job prospects as irrelevant to his ctact to be deemed totally incapacitated under 5s 6. f he ee In my opinion, the ambit cof the class ~ of werk comprenendeac by the words 'emplsymensz of a kind that 18S not commonly availiapls'' cannot be determined without reference to tne physical and other capaci Tiss possessed DY the particular employee whose claim to be treated as totally incapacitated falis te be Getermined. 'The cbvicus intent of the secticn is to faciiitvate compensation claims by employees who sufrer fron scme Lncaracley an obtaz:ning 2mployment. It would be strange 1= the nature and extent of tnat incapaciuyz were net relevant in ascertaining the 'employment of a kind that 15 mot commonly avazlable' referrea tc in tne section. Further, the reference in the seécticn to th employee Deing 'fitted' For emp ~oyment sugcGests that 221s carticula Ls to be taxzen into acccun m whether employment or 2 15 commoniy available. Thu 'ne erasenct baa case, I would reaa the on as requiring Bel an inquiry to be made as her : employment 15 commeniy ava e for a worker aa W1ltaA the Limited ence anc re onysical capacit ant." ae — rads ae a, 2 foe ook Bee PRIA ICR Dt ta REO EEE BO ele ante a ee a eek one ett Cae ee nee nen attention - in respect of the matter of "employment of a kind that is not commonly availiable" - to the types of work comprised in the respondent's work history. It was said that, whilst it is correct to consider previous employment, 10 15 erronecus to consider cnly such employment for the purposes of s.26. As a general proposition, 1t must be carzrect to say that the Tribunal is not confined to those fields of employment in which a particular applicant has previously been engaced. It 1s not difficult to imagine cases in which 1 w2ril apsear that Fh applicant is able to carry out pacticular work although he has never cone so in the past. But, upon an appeal, the Tribunal's #2 ut appreach must be considered in the context cf the case before The Tribunal was here considering the case of a particular applicant for compensation, wi th particular disabilzties and other relevant characteristics and with a particular employmen experience. <=t was understandable that the Tribunal shnoulia address itsel= primarily to those jobs in relation to which the resvondent had had pasc experience. It did not decizne to ty a consider other possibilities offered re) N suggested by t: Morizng mo w 'S I 4 tw a a Le] uw bn) employer; there were none. In Ane o nN ia) (s} a] ie ud ct is iv ir \e wu the approach taken in the "odd lot" line of authority case where the employer contends tnat a worker 1s not incapacitated because of his ability cto perform scmé workthe onus rests upon the employer to show that such work is avallasle. 2s Honour quoted and applied the words of Dimon CU and Kittc 7 in Baucevic v Commonwealth (1957) 98 CLR 296 at po 303-304: ener Aut os — "Tt has long been settled that total incapacity may exist altnough the injurec man retains enough physical capacity to enable him to do particular work cf a special «ind not forming one of the ordinary reccgnised avenues of employment. in this Court che position was summarzsed thus - 'permanently and totally disabled, an expression which, in our opinion, means physzcally incapacitated from sever sarning by work any fart of his livelzhecaé. Thais condition 1s satistied when capacity for earning has gone excest For the chance of cbtaining ssecial employmens cf an unusual kind': Wicxs v Union Steamshio 73. of New Zealand ate. (1933) 50 CLR 328 at s 338. If that be the cass the disablement 15 regardec as total unless and until the employer cam show that sucn s employment 1s available. The E Fletcher Mouiton L.d. in Cardiff 7 Halt (2911) 1 KB 1009 at op 1920-1021 contains the exclanation which is regarcec as the basis of the doctrine. It 1s there that Acs loresnie used, scerhaps unfortunately ard certainly apclogeticaily, the expression ocd lot' with reference to tne labour which the nnjured man is capable of offering. The passage in which it occurs 2s as follows: might be allowed to use such an undignified phrase I should zay that if tne accident leaves the worsman's Laocur in The eositicn of an 'sdd lot' in the labour marker, the employer must show that a customer can be found whe will take it. For in such a case we ars not in truth dealing with fluctuatrons of the labcur market ar ail. We are dealing with the chance of some one being found whe can anc will avail I x f the special residue cf powers een ieft in the workmar, ard, zt 1s tne result cf the accident raman has teen made denencent on ci such a srecial emplecyer, 11 15 these wno are lianle to pay co Aim m ior Als Loss of sarning tower mly be allowea to taxe credit for nis x apacity for work 12 ctuney can show that it can actually be made orcdauctive of remuneration to him. In an ampertant recent secision, Gibson and Ton : ">= . ' enn rer ae terre Se ee nt ee ee ee ett er a en BS oral Hy: hos ie ' } ant > wal a * - - of Australia (N84/203, 8 March 1985) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has suggested that the "odd lot" doctrine has been superceded, in the context cf Commonwealth Government emplovee's compensation, by s.26 of the Act. Reference was made to the fact that, in introducing the Compensation (Commonwealch Enplcyees) Bill - which subsequently became the Act - to each of the Houses of Parliament the responsible Ministers each referred to 1t as being intended to codify the law relating to workers compensation fcr Commonwealth employees. The Tribunal also referred to an explanatory memcrandum orcduced by the Government and circulazed to members of the Parliament which, in relation to clause 26 of the Pill sand: "This clause gives statutory expression *o Court decisions to regard as totally incapacitated an "odd lot", 1.6. an employee who 18 so injured that his capacity for earning has cone eaxcevt for the chance of obtaining special employment of an unusual xina." In Gibson the Tr:bunal went on to express the view thac r=) lon the intention of Parliament was to displace the earlier commen law, making 1naoprcpriace the focusing of atcentiecn upon the concept of a worker's capacity constituting ar "odd ict" on the labour market and requiring the consideration cnly of the question whevher the employee was fitted only fcr "emplo <] ti] MEnNt oF o 2 a kind that 1s not commonly avazlaple". I think that this < 16; 2. Must be correct, ~ ea tN ie i tn ete ee Anat Ta Tahoe es eg te Seat a+ eee Pose te wert. Are et SB SIN te of tt ee perl PES Toei OE i OR OL TOE Fo Oe a ee g.26 for the "oded lct" doctrine affects the onus of ovroot. As was pointed cut in McDonald v7 Director-General of Sociar (1984) 1 FOR 354, reference to rules relating to onus of Sroof } wili not nermally be aporopriate in relatzron to the determination i of administrative matters by the Administrative Appeals Trisunal Ver the swuestion may arise as to tne ccurse to be taken wheres ther? 15 nc sufficient evidence upon which te base a cecisicr. ' In McDonatd, at 3-357, Woodward J. commented urcn tnat Pn pesslbiilty: ""Cartainiy 1f no matariai is available to the decision-maker, or if available material leaves the decrston~maker quite uncertain whether the verscen 15 pernanentiy uncapacitatec, the clazm must fail.' = would resrectiuliy agree and I would arpiy that comments to ¢.7t¢ by saying that a person who 1s not in fact t3tally incap who 15 capasle or scme tvde oF employment, is to be deemed to 28 totally incactacitated fsr worn 2 wnole cf the eviaence, it apoears that twe ceonaitisns area oh Cc le Ih Fe}- o £2 ct be fo ca © c m a ba te) iy sts O p SS yo a f4 ie)s I H n e oO pb ct b el ry ) (} ny available to him or her, If, at tne end of tne tay, taere is 72 a eee eee ne een Se ap ene ome rere There 15 no obligation, under the Act, upon an emplcyer to provide to an incapacitated worker employment within his Capabilities: cf. s.11(2) of the Workers' Compensation Acc 1926 (NSW). But it doés not follow that the faziure of the employer to offer suitable employment is irrelevant to a consideration of the second questicn arising under s.2é. Modern standards of industrial responsibility demand that emplcyers attemot, where possible, to redeploy zn suitable sositions persons who, having been injured during the course of theirs employment, are capaple only of restricted dut2zes. There is no season to arely any tr, lesser standard to government instrumentalities. Acccrcing to inscvrumerntalities - including, 1% appears, the voresent apreilant - to make that attempt. I think that 1% should be assumed in therr favour, until evidence to the contrary appears, that all government instrumentalzties fcllow that enlightsned approach. it follows that, in a case in which no offer of suitable employment 1s made, 1t should be assumed that the employer nas no SuLtabie work avaziable. The wercht to be attached to the fact that ths particular employer has no suzttable work avatlasle will depend upon the facts of the particular case, including varticularly of the nature, s2z2 and geographical location oF ine employer. The eresent appellant igs a major employer cf Labcur carrying Sut Operations tnroughcur Australia. It has emplovees in the Gosford or Gistrict, where the arpvellart resides, iunciudirg at an omen ene ee ed we - oe eee es - te wt ee —_- wee ae wee eee ee cee te ron weal wae meth eel Mp Soke Re Ot te eds ee Se ee od - which its sufficienti7 substantial co be adminzstrative of Gosford 'nead office". The is] 'y@14. for oa 1b p wu cr ty i BS described 1 appellant is fully cocnizant cf the resrpondent's physical and 'd n respondent tc the work force and ending the necessity for h2m tc 4 ation or weifare pavments. The acoellant dia fen epe ake one actempt, im March 1983, to find work suztable to Mr. bel upon oO fe) is) ie) ait) b=] eccmmonsense - and net cf any rigid approach to the cnus vO say thal in such a case there is material From which ths Tribunal could find that surtable work was net at mo evicence to sc indicate - tnat a suitable jab mighc exist. re. a a. el an = - = 7 - The seccnd majcr vont relied uren by che apsellanc arose out of the circumstance that in 1573, not sorg aiteéc he hac i bd Pon oe ge > ~ le en - cay . . - . arta een Caena tithe aint celts aA Loe Steal tt Ea et it aetna al oo ee eye or the loss of a leg. Section 29(14) provides that an of compensation rererred toa in the section "1s not payable amount in respect of an injury so long as the employee is, or 1s likely tc become, totally incapacitated for work where the 2zncapacity resuits, cr, 1f it occurs, will resuit, in whole or in pact fron that injury." However, the Act recognises the sossibility that, notwithstanding that provision, an employee may suffer total incapacity in respect of an injury for which he has already received s.3S°compensation. The compensation may be paid error or the employvee's condition may worsen after recerpt by him a! t * tf of the 5.39 compensation. If he goes on to becone rotally incapacitated for work, and the incapacity is likely tc» comtinue indefinitely, he 1s entitled te compensation under the Act some adjustment to the amount cf the benefit to reflect <he payment he has already received: see s.50. A further possibility 2s additional incapacity sesulting from the employees undergoing medical treatrent which it was reascnarle f5r aim obtain in respect of the injury. Section 47 celevantly erovides that if, after the maxing of a determination under 5.39, employee undergoes medicai treatment in relaticn tc that inaucy + + « any incapacity of the em oyee for work rssulting from that meGical treatment . . . shall, for the vourpuses of thas Act, be deemec to have resulted from that injury" ana comcensaticn is ayable uncer s.45 (total incavecity) or s. 46 (vartzial incapacity) as the case may be Oe ee ee re ee ee ee In paras 20 and 21 of its reasons the Tribural neld tnat baa PAE KES ~ oe on : nt an Py same ab FEAT tn es Se Fe bbet medals Ft ce a aT pa a ee A Ig I TT i i a ea a eet no i ee < By Som cy fu oo iTa p "20. On the evidence the arpiicant to continue with his normal employm with cnanges frcm the injury to the operation. The fact that he was ch abie to sarn more while working as unicn otiicial seems to us largely reievant. He lett Teiecom only condment and nad every expsctacit turning co Telecom if, as 10 hap icn work ceased to be available - Aparc. From that union wert he has rot able to work since. ~ & bh @ fe by yo mM pe re (a) a Laie) Pair D s Py pp a» Bh O ® 7533 ir 0 O the pura n 8 'I+ Gant at GH 2i- We are of the view that che fir oeeration was @ sequei to the injury second operation was a sequel to ths and that the second oreraticn turned applicant from a verson who was able his normal wages to an incapacitated so find. Section +7 deals wita that ction 50 deals with a gener A incac p "uo Pf we O a at rh MmoOrmrtygdobprpa ® Db re) iss ny a a]0 uh fon 'C Po BS in) vw £ NU B fas) a \- i+ oe ey iy peRua Oo OF ia PH a GS Oo mn ct o re D it a % » ensazisn 18 rayaple section 47 in re total fagraoh 17(3: cof waich he was a Arh AOk ayray A a rbosu G iS CcPer { ec cc ca 2O as fc fe ma i onaoo ct po OU A w'y ts AQ YR aA CM rom KIO dou oto try re) fi ra ty p u QpAs Pat: -oa wD i) Lay ip) ie) i resconéent was able . reason of - lo" ao oO a] el iD Ea Fy ie] % fe iD pu sy rae a m wr iwfu LP a fu hy y fa wD fa fay c ch a ft p nm ry b2 H a a fam vp pa) i]ct ty a caceful operation, rezsonabiy carried out, nas produced ar unfortunate resuit. 1s w w c ony ct ie) a ct ir o 167) 0) a afh6) D La] w ct ' Oo ie] rm m is J wm c. 'S 1g oO Ly ul 0) inh vy ™ cr rm iT i) <q ma ion wo11 ri) When ne returnec <9 normal auties, according t2 ats Re ek nent et ee [Li ATR niche han AN md oe ee ce. Le) GB 21 Gusifeida, ad {22 m De » fre aiS uplanatr an lying no1 Or m ng is) rm) Suras = ru H m sae, t-