Please refrain from payment. This will most likely be heading to the AAT.

Comcare have in the consideration & reconsideration, ignored the fact that the entire basis for the decision is predicated on Dr Khurana's report, which contains deliberate misrepresentation.[1]

1. One would observe from the language used in that email that, firstly, the applicant was well aware of his rights to seek review of the reviewable decision in the AAT, of this there can be no doubt. Secondly, it is quite apparent that at that stage the applicant had very strong views about the contents of Dr Khurana's report relied on by Comcare in making the reviewable decision, and certainly in his mind a firm foundation for seeking such review in that Tribunal.
2. On 3 June 2022, the applicant then emailed Comcare and requested the respondent proceed to process the payment referred to in the reviewable decision.[2] He also provided his Medicare number to them to assist with the processing.
3. Until correspondence last year, in particular an email of 22 May 2025, the applicant did not agitate with Comcare his concerns about the reviewable decision, and in particular that it was wrong, or in the very strong terms that he now contends for.[3] That email was a very widely worded email seeking a reconsideration in effect of all his claims for treatment, medication, scans and travel that had previously been rejected from the month of November 2021 until that date. He also emphasised in that email that by approving recent treatment by Dr Sullivan and the "revision surgery" by his treating neurosurgeon Dr Awad, Comcare had accepted that there were ongoing pain and symptoms experienced by him. The applicant also stated that the Whole Person Impairment ("WPI") and scores arrived at in the reviewable decision were based upon what was described as, "Dr Khurana's fraudulent report which found no ongoing pain and symptoms". Further, in that email the applicant also stated that Comcare had since accepted treatment and surgery, "directly contradicting Dr Khurana's fraudulent claims."
4. To accuse a highly qualified and experienced neurosurgeon of fraud, as the applicant has done on many occasions in the material before the Tribunal, is an allegation of the utmost seriousness. If an applicant holds such strong views of highly qualified medical specialist, they should not sit on them as the applicant has done.
5. Once again, one would observe that given the very strong terms in which the applicant viewed the findings of Dr Khurana, going to the level of describing them as "fraudulent", it would have been expected, being well aware of his rights of review in the AAT that the applicant would have exercised them promptly and within the time prescribed by the SRC Act.
6. There have been several explanations offered by the applicant for the delay.
7. In the application lodged with the Tribunal on 29 October 2025, there is a section which requests the applicant to outline his reasons for applying for an extension of time, including why he did not apply within the time limit. The explanation offered by him in that section of the application referred to the respondent, Comcare, in making the reviewable decision relying upon the medical report prepared by neurosurgeon Dr Khurana. That report concluded that the applicant had no ongoing pain or symptoms. The applicant took strong exception to this opinion expressed by him. In the application lodged with the Tribunal, he also stated that this opinion by Dr Khurana was contrary to other medical opinions from three different neurosurgeons, and a pain doctor until approximately August 2024.
8. From August 2024, the applicant in his application, recorded that the respondent started to accept liability for treatment including liability for what he described as "revision surgery" on his L5/S1 fusion.
9. The applicant then, in a rather extraordinary way, requested an extension of time on the basis that the respondent, Comcare relied upon what he described as "a fraudulent report" (from Dr Khurana) to assign lower scores and impairment percentages on the grounds that he was suffering no pain or symptoms. (Dr Khurana's report of 26 November 2021 stated that the applicant had no clinical signs to justify his reported symptoms and did not require any further treatment). Subsequently, he contended that Comcare have accepted that he was indeed still suffering from ongoing pain and symptoms. In that setting the respondent has, as the applicant described it, put aside previous decisions and subsequently accepted liability for treatment that was previously rejected by it relying upon what he described as, once again, "Dr Khurana's fraudulent report".
10. In both written and oral submissions made by the applicant during the hearing of this application, he expanded on the reasons for applying for an extension of time.
11. It was explained by the applicant that in November 2022, a nerve conduction study was obtained which demonstrated chronic L5 radicular symptoms. This conclusion was also supported by subsequent findings of his treating specialists who conducted examinations of him. The results of the nerve conduction study were obtained after the report was prepared by Dr Khurana and was clearly not before him at the time he prepared his report relied upon by Comcare in making the reviewable decision.
12. The applicant also contended what he described as an "Approval Gap" of 780 days was due to him waiting for Comcare to approve what he described as "revision surgery" which only occurred in 2024. Reference was made to a reconsideration determination of 18 June 2025 ("the 18 June 2025 determination") which undertook a reconsideration of determinations made by Comcare on the following dates:

(a) 8 January 2021; > > (b) 11 March 2021; > > (c) 7 December 2021; > > (d) 24 October 2022; and > > (e) 13 May 2024.[4]

(a) Affirm the determinations dated 8 January 2021 and 11 March 2021; > > (b) Vary the determination dated 7 December 2021 to accept liability for a bone scan and a CT scan; and > > (c) Revoke the determinations dated 24 October 2022 and 13 May 2024 to accept liability for a right S1 nerve root decompression and de-tethering and a L5/S1 posterior pedicle screw fixation and grafting.

14. Reference was made in several of the experts' reports, other documents before the Tribunal, and particularly the T documents, to the results of nerve conduction studies that had been conducted on the applicant. For instance, in the reconsideration determination of 18 June 2025, there is reference to a report of 23 November 2022 from Dr Brazenor, a neurosurgeon, who consulted with the applicant. He had examined the applicant's nerve conduction studies and what they revealed. Following his consultation with the applicant and examination of those nerve conduction studies, he recommended a thorough decompression of the applicant's right S1 and L5 nerve roots.
15. Considerable emphasis and reliance were placed by the applicant on a determination made on 30 September 2024 entitled "Surgery acceptance" made by a delegate of the respondent Comcare.[5] That determination followed the receipt by Comcare of a recommendation from the applicant's treating neurosurgeon Dr Awad of 5 September 2024 that he required an L5/S1 posterior fixation and posterior grafting and right S1 rhizolysis. The delegate decided that under s 16 of the SRC Act Comcare would pay for the procedure recommended by Dr Awad. That surgery was subsequently undertaken in February 2025.
16. The applicant contended that until the respondent, Comcare permitted this surgery to take place, between him and it there was, what he described a "Clinical Stalemate". Due to the "Clinical Stalemate", he was simply not in a position to make an application to this Tribunal that had any prospect of success with respect to the reviewable decision. He further contended that physical proof of the "nerve tethering" and "failed fusion" were in effect hidden inside his spine and the true situation or causes of the symptoms and pain he experienced were only accurately identified or diagnosed when that subsequent surgery, approved by Comcare was undertaken by Dr Awad. In support of this contention in a written submission of 25 February 2026 in tabular form he provided a "Phase-by-Phase Breakdown" identifying the number of days delay that he contends were caused by the respondent in most cases as justifying why he did not make this application sooner or within the period prescribed under the SRC Act.
17. It should be observed at this juncture that neither the 18 June 2025 determination or the determination made on 30 September 2024 entitled "Surgery acceptance" undertook a reconsideration of the reviewable decision for which the applicant presently seeks an extension of time before this Tribunal to undertake a review of. This is problematic.
18. The Tribunal considers that in all circumstances as outlined above the applicant has rested on his rights when he was well aware of what those rights were. He was acutely alive to his rights to review and the fact that there was a 60-day time limit within which to make an application to the AAT after the reviewable decision was made. Notwithstanding the explanation for the delay made by the applicant, it was simply too long. In addition, given the very grave allegations he makes against both Comcare, in making the reviewable decision and against Dr Khurana, there was an imperative to bring the application on within the time prescribed. A delay of over three years is simply too long.
19. There is another aspect of the matter which weighs against granting the extension of time sought by the applicant. It does to a significant degree involve a consideration of the merits of the substantive application by the applicant and the claims he makes concerning the inaccurate calculations made in the reviewable decision of the claims for PI and NEL under sections 24 and 27 of the SRC Act.
20. It is important to understand the process of the administration of claims contemplated by the SRC Act as has been considered in several decisions of the Federal Court of Australia. It was alluded to by the Tribunal in dialogue with the parties during the hearing of this application.
21. In Abrahams v Comcare Madgwick J observed in the context of the statutory scheme created by the SRC Act that nothing is more common than that medical diagnoses change and evolve or become various over time.[6] In this setting there should be a beneficial, broad and practical interpretation and application of this notion. It should be observed that the SRC Act is a beneficial legislation and should be construed accordingly.
22. As was observed by Conti J in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Hannaford:[7]

"The statutory scheme allows for progressive and evolving decision-making giving effect to the provisions of ongoing review of relief or entitlements in the nature of course of workers' compensation, being review which allows for adjustment or change in the light of events and circumstances which may subsequently happen. The statutory scheme hence reflects a flexible scope for adjustment by way of decisions in the nature of awards to be made subsequently to the determination of s 14 liability, whether that determination be made in isolation, or in the context of decision-making concerning consequential relief that may be required in the light of evolving circumstances. It is therefore a scheme which allows progressively for ongoing relief, and is thus not comparable of course with the process of curial resolution of the traditional common law entitlement of an injured employee for damages as a consequence of the negligent conduct of an employer. The opening words of s 14 (1), "Subject to this Part.." are consistent with the flexibility inherent in the ensuing codification of the various facets of compensation envisaged".

1. Indeed, the determination made on 30 September 2024 entitled "Surgery acceptance" made by a delegate of the respondent Comcare is a practical example of the change in medical diagnoses as contemplated by Madgwick J in Abrahams referred to above. Further, in making that determination and agreeing to fund the surgery described in that determination, it was yet again an example of the way the statutory scheme as explained by Conti J in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Hannaford allows for progressive and evolving decision-making giving effect to the provisions of ongoing review of relief or entitlements. Such progressive and evolving decision-making arises from the change in medical diagnoses exactly as described by the applicant.
2. In this setting there is much force in the contentions of the respondent that an increase in lump sum compensation based on an increased WPI assessment and increased NEL scores is difficult to determine presently.
3. The respondent acknowledged that since 2022, the applicant's condition did not improve and ultimately probably worsened to the extent that further spinal surgery was undertaken on him in February 2025.
4. Medical reports containing an assessment of the applicant's WPI and NEL have not been obtained. Therefore, to enable this assessment to be completed what is really necessary is, firstly, for a fresh lump sum compensation claim form completed by the applicant with accompanying medical reports which should be provided. Secondly, clinical records from the applicant's treating practitioners should be provided with such claim or to the respondent. Thirdly, on receipt of that material no doubt the respondent Comcare would arrange for an independent medico-legal report from an appropriately qualified medical specialist to be obtained to determine the merits of such an application.
5. The Tribunal accepts the respondent's contention contained in its written submissions of 16 February 2026 that in the circumstances this factor weighs against granting the extension of time as sought. The contention on the part of the respondent that the more appropriate approach to assessing any further WPI or NEL claims is more appropriately undertaken by adopting the process referred to in the previous paragraph.
6. By reason of the foregoing matters, the Tribunal does not consider it reasonable in all the circumstances to extend the time for review of the reviewable decision as sought by the applicant. Therefore, the application for an extension of time within which to bring the application for review is refused. Given this finding it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the question of any summary determination.

[6] [2006] FCA 1829; (2006) 93 ALD 147 at [21].

[7] [2006] FCAFC 87; (2006) 90 ALD 263 at [57].