Adams and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review by the Applicant against a determination by Comcare, the Respondent, which denied liability for the Applicant's claim of "early osteoarthritis and some soft tissue pain". The Applicant had been employed by Services Australia since July 2000, initially part-time and then full-time from June 2001, in a Service Officer role involving sedentary duties such as data entry and phone use, with significant reliance on computer and mouse operation. The Applicant alleged that her symptoms, affecting her fingers, wrists, and elbows, developed gradually due to prolonged overtime work between late October 2017 and March 2018.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant's condition constituted an "injury" for the purposes of the relevant workers' compensation legislation, specifically whether it arose out of or in the course of her employment. This involved considering whether a physiological change was necessary to establish a disease, and whether the experience of symptoms, rather than a diagnosed disease, could amount to an aggravation of an injury. The Tribunal also had to assess whether the nature of the Applicant's work, including the intensity and duration of computer and phone use, and the ergonomic issues identified, contributed to her condition.

The Tribunal reasoned that an injury under the legislation does not necessarily require a distinct physiological change, and that the aggravation of a pre-existing condition or the experience of symptoms can constitute an injury. The evidence indicated that the Applicant's role involved repetitive fine motor skills and awkward postures, particularly with computer and phone use, and that ergonomic adjustments were made in 2011 to alleviate symptoms. Furthermore, the Applicant's testimony suggested that her symptoms significantly improved during periods of leave, indicating a link between her work and her pain. The Tribunal found that the cumulative effect of the Applicant's work duties, including the intensity of her role in the complex drugs unit and the ergonomic challenges, led to an aggravation of her condition, which constituted an injury arising out of or in the course of her employment.

The Tribunal set aside the Respondent's decision and substituted it with a determination that the Applicant had suffered an injury arising out of or in the course of her employment.