Barnes and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Barnes against a decision by Comcare to decline liability for compensation. The dispute centred on whether the applicant suffered a compensable "injury" under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) when he experienced a cardiac event on 15 December 2020, while at his place of work. While it was accepted that the applicant did not suffer a heart attack, he contended that he experienced unstable angina, which he argued constituted a frank injury.

The court was required to determine whether the physiological changes experienced by the applicant between his arrival at work and the time an ambulance was called constituted a "sudden and ascertainable or dramatic physiological change or disturbance," thereby qualifying as an injury under the Act. The applicant relied on sections 5A(1)(b) and 6(1)(b) of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth), arguing that the event arose out of or in the course of his employment.

The court accepted the applicant's submission that claim forms should not be read strictly regarding precise medical diagnoses, referencing *Abrahams v Comcare*. The medical consensus was that the applicant suffered from unstable angina, a condition short of a heart attack, evidenced by the absence of elevated Troponin levels. The critical question was whether the deterioration in the applicant's condition between 7:30 am and 9:30 am on 15 December 2020 amounted to a sudden and ascertainable or dramatic physiological change. The court found the contemporaneous descriptions of symptoms in hospital and incident reports to be more reliable than the applicant's specific recollection.

The court found that the applicant did suffer a frank injury in the nature of unstable angina, which qualified as an injury under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). Accordingly, the applicant was entitled to compensation.