Arrold and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against a decision by Comcare (the Respondent) to deny liability for compensation under section 14 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The Applicant claimed compensation for a shoulder condition, specifically a labral tear, which he asserted was a repetitive strain injury that had developed over many years of employment. The Respondent had determined that the Applicant's employment had not contributed to his ailment or an aggravation of an ailment to a significant degree.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant's shoulder condition, or an aggravation of that condition, was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment. This required the Tribunal to consider the definition of "significant degree" as meaning substantially more than material, and to assess the medical evidence in light of the factors outlined in section 5B(2) of the *SRC Act*. The Applicant contended that his employment, characterised by long hours, demanding operational roles, and poor ergonomic environments, had caused or aggravated his shoulder condition over time, rather than a specific traumatic event.

The Tribunal found the Applicant to be a credible witness and acknowledged that his shoulder pain had been experienced throughout his employment, with various reports made to his employer regarding workstation ergonomics and seeking treatment. However, the Tribunal noted that the medical evidence, including that from treating doctors and independent examiners, was consistent in its inability to pinpoint when the shoulder condition occurred or whether it had been the cause of pain since 2009. While the Tribunal accepted that the Applicant's shoulder condition might be impacted by his employment, it concluded that the medical evidence did not satisfy the threshold of proving contribution to a "significant degree" as required by the *SRC Act*.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Respondent's decision, finding that the Applicant had not established an injury for the purposes of section 5A of the *SRC Act*. Therefore, compensation was not payable in relation to the claimed shoulder injury.