Ajmal and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Ajmal against a decision by Comcare to deny liability for an aggravation of lateral epicondylitis, commonly known as "tennis elbow," in his right arm. Mr. Ajmal, employed as an auditor, claimed his condition was aggravated by his work involving extensive keyboard and mouse usage. Comcare contended that while Mr. Ajmal suffered from an ailment, it was a degenerative condition not contributed to by his employment to a significant degree, and therefore sought affirmation of its decision to deny compensation.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Ajmal had suffered an "injury" as defined by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act). Specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine if Mr. Ajmal's lateral epicondylitis constituted a "disease" under the Act, which necessitates a finding that his employment contributed to the condition to a significant degree. The Tribunal also considered the evidentiary standard required to satisfy the statutory requirements for compensation.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Mr. Ajmal experienced pain symptoms during his work, this alone was insufficient to establish that his ailment was significantly contributed to by his employment. The weight of the expert medical evidence did not support a significant contribution from his employment with the ANAO. Instead, the Tribunal found that Mr. Ajmal's condition was primarily the result of an underlying constitutional and age-related process, not caused by his work. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that his employment contributed to his ailment to a significant degree, meaning he had not suffered a "disease" or "injury" under the SRC Act.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decision, finding that Comcare was not liable to pay compensation to Mr. Ajmal pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act.