������ҹ������

The Tribunal held that the application was moot. At the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, ABCC had already issued its decision and granted the Applicant’s claims. Accordingly, the Application was found not receivable.

The claim the Applicant filed on 27 March 2013 was out of time and subject to the Secretary-General’s discretion excercisable “in exceptional circumstances” because she did not submit the claim within four months of knowledge of the injury as required by art. 12 of Appendix D. With respect to the existence of exceptional circumstances, the ABCC disregarded evidence and information provided by the Applicant regarding her medical condition which impeded her ability to direct her attention to the claim for service incurred injury. The ABCC did not consider these reasons, apportion appropriate...

The ABCC rectified the procedural irregularities as directed by Judgment No. UNDT/2019/019 in its reconsideration of the Applicant’s claim. The ABCC received and considered a medical opinion of the medical doctor of MSD, who reviewed medical reports submitted by the Applicant along with his prior medical history. While the Applicant made allegations of improper considerations, he did not provide any supporting evidence and these allegations are without merit.

The Applicant had not adduced any documentary evidence to show that the SecretaryGeneral considered and made an administrative decision in relation to his claim for gross negligence. The only evidence that he had produced was to the effect that he asked the ABCC to consider compensating him for gross negligence over and above the award for compensation for injuries sustained in the course of duty. The Applicant brought his claim for compensation for gross negligence under a procedure that had been adjudicated irregular for not being supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rule or...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not identify any operative part of Judgment Massi UNDT/2016/100 that would not have been executed. Furthermore, Judgment Massi UNDT/2016/100 dealt with the calculation and timing of compensation for loss of earning capacity due to the Applicant from 14 May 2005 until 31 December 2015. No order was made in respect of any payment or entitlement to compensation after 31 December 2015. The Tribunal found that the present application raised a different matter than that addressed in Judgment Massi UNDT/2016/100 and was not related to any of the remedies...

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 application is moot as the underlying contested decision in this case has been reversed.

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...