Workers Compensation Update
In this edition, we address a recent determination from the Tasmanian Civil & Administrative Tribunal confirming the requirements of a valid section 86(1)(c) certificate.
CL v The Trustee for Kent Relocation Group Pty Ltd [2026] TASCAT 7 (22 January 2026)
Background
On 15 November 2023, the worker suffered an injury. The claim for compensation was accepted.
On 30 April 2024, the worker underwent a medical examination with Dr Jack Dale.
On 3 December 2024, Dr Dale signed a certificate pursuant to section 86(1)(c) of the Act, certifying that the worker had recovered from the effects of the work injury and that any incapacity that the worker suffered from was no longer due to the work injury (certificate).
On 14 March 2025, a notice pursuant to section 86(3) and the certificate were sent by post to the worker (notice).
On or about 3 April 2025, weekly payments of compensation to the worker were terminated.
The question for the Tribunal to determine was whether the section 86(1)(c) certificate was valid.
Why did the worker say the certificate was deficient?
The worker identified three circumstances by which the certificate was invalid:
- The documents and articles referred to in the certificate were not annexed to it.
- The delay between the examination, the signing of the certificate and the service of the certificate.
- The certificate was imprecise and ambiguous. Namely, Dr Dale notes several diagnoses and causation for each, but he does not provide clear reasoning for his conclusions.
What did the Tribunal decide?
The Tribunal determined that the section 86(1)(c) certificate was valid.
The grounds for opinion must be present
A medical practitioner must express an opinion regarding the injury and explain why they reach that conclusion.
If a medical practitioner states identifiable grounds for their opinion, any alleged flaws go to the weight of the opinion, not the validity of the certificate, and are matters for hearing or conciliation.
The delay between the examination, signing and serving the certificate was not fatal
Delay between the examination, signing the certificate and serving the certificate does not invalidate the certificate.
There are no time limits or requirements to act promptly in the section with respect to preparation of a certificate or the service of it.
Documents and articles do not need to be annexed
The Act does not require the material that is considered when making the opinion to be annexed to the certificate.
Key elements for a valid section 86(1)(c) certificate
This determination acts as a timely reminder that for a section 86(1)(c) certificate to be valid it must:
- clearly and unambiguously identify the injury for which weekly payments are being made;
- clearly express the medical practitioner’s opinion that the worker has wholly recovered or substantially recovered from the effects of that injury, or that any incapacity is no longer due, wholly or substantially, to that injury; and
- set out the grounds (or reasons) upon which the opinion is given.
As long as reasoning or explanation is given about how a medical practitioner’s conclusions were reached, there is no deficiency in the validity of the certificate.
Whether a medical practitioner’s opinion is correct, is a different matter altogether.
While a delay between the examination, signing and service of a section 86(1)(c) certificate does not affect its validity, we recommend that section 86(1)(c) certificates are prepared and served promptly as a matter of best practice.
