�鶹��ý

There are two elements that must be established for a claim under Appendix D, one is the medical assessment of whether the claimant suffered from the injury or illness as alleged. The other is the non-medical factual determination whether the illness or injury was attributable to the performance of official duties on behalf of the Organization. The obtaining, handling, review, analysis and dissemination of any form of material to be used in a matter as evidence must be done in compliance with some basic rules to ensure that basic principles of fairness and due process are upheld, particularly...

Article 13 of the applicable Appendix D requires the ABCC to make its determination “on the basis of reports obtained from a qualified medical practitioner or practitioners”. The scope of the ABCC’s discretion in exercising its powers is also not unlimited under the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal (see Sanwidi as quoted above).; As convincingly explained by the Applicant’s psychologist, PTSD differs from many other types of diseases and illnesses because the symptoms of PTSD do not manifest themselves at the same time as the event(s) that caused it—PTSD is per definition a post traumatic...

The Applicant’s benefit was properly calculated and that there are no grounds for him to claim additional benefits.

The Applicant’s claim of breach of duty of care is not receivable since he did not submit a separate claim for breach of duty of care to the Secretary-General for consideration and decision. While the review of the breach of duty of care claim is requested in the Applicant’s request for management evaluation, this does not cure the procedural defect which is the Applicant’s failure to request the Secretary-General’s consideration and decision. The decision to reject the Applicant’s claim under Appendix D Regarding the claim that the Secretary of ABCC did not have the valid delegated authority...

Receivability The Tribunal found that the second communication from the ABCC, not the first communication, constituted the notification of the contested decision since it clearly indicated that the ABCC reviewed the Applicant’s additional requests and rejected them. The Tribunal found that subsequent communications between the ABCC and the Applicant did not reset the statutory deadline as they were the reiteration of the contested decision. The application was timely filed and receivable. The claim of negligence was already adjudicated in the earlier judgment and therefore is not receivable as...

Article 13 of the applicable Appendix D requires the ABCC to make its determination “on the basis of reports obtained from a qualified medical practitioner or practitioners”. The scope of the ABCC’s discretion in exercising its powers is also not unlimited under the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal (see Sanwidi as quoted above). As convincingly explained by the Applicant’s psychologist, PTSD differs from many other types of diseases and illnesses because the symptoms of PTSD do not manifest themselves at the same time as the event(s) that caused it—PTSD is per definition a post traumatic...

The Tribunal found that the ABCC considered all relevant matters in arriving at the decision, and that the impugned decision was legal, rational, and procedurally correct. The submission that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rationae temporis was without merit and was rejected. Contrary to the Respondent’s assertion, the ABCC’s letter of 29 December 2017 was an administrative decision given that it was arrived at after the Applicant, in response to the ABCC’s email of 25 May 2017 inviting him to furnish new evidence. He furnished new evidence relating to each of the...

The contested decision having been rescinded by the Administration was, therefore, not a final administrative decision capable of review by this Tribunal, which, consequently, can make no pronouncement as to its legality or as to any effects it may have caused. The Applicant’s claim that the rescission of the contested decision constitutes an admission of its unlawfulness is without merit. The Application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal notes that in this case, the Applicant does not claim any abuse of the current proceedings, nor does the Tribunal observe any such...