Bennett and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by a former Commonwealth employee, the Applicant, against Comcare, the Respondent, regarding compensation for a repetitive strain injury. The Applicant had previously been accepted as suffering from a repetitive strain injury to her right side of the neck, right wrist, and shoulder, and subsequently, a repetitive strain injury to her right arm, with liability also accepted for her left shoulder and arm. The core dispute revolved around whether the Applicant's current condition constituted the same injury for which liability was previously accepted, and if so, whether it remained a condition contributed to by her employment, thereby entitling her to ongoing compensation for physiotherapy treatment under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were multifaceted. Firstly, it was necessary to determine the nature of the Applicant's current ailment or injury and whether it was identical to the conditions for which liability had been previously accepted. Secondly, if the current condition was classified as an injury, the Tribunal had to ascertain if the Applicant was still suffering its effects from specific dates relevant to her claims. Thirdly, if the condition was classified as an ailment, the Tribunal was required to determine if it continued to be an ailment contributed to by the Applicant's employment. Finally, if these conditions were met, the Tribunal had to assess whether the Respondent was liable to pay for physiotherapy treatment, considering whether such treatment qualified as 'medical treatment' under the SRC Act, was obtained in relation to an injury, and was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Tribunal considered the medical evidence, particularly reports from Dr. Floyd, an occupational physician. Dr. Floyd opined that the Applicant's current complaints of pain in her neck, shoulders, and arms were best characterised as 'non-specific musculoskeletal pain,' which he described as the contemporary term for muscular ache and pain, and previously known as RSI. He further stated that there was no specific injury pathology identified and that any initial strain or overload from her past employment would have resolved within a short period. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal found that the Applicant's current condition was non-specific musculoskeletal pain, which was not the same specific injury for which liability had been initially accepted.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the Applicant did not currently suffer from the same injury for which liability was previously accepted. As such, the conditions for entitlement to compensation for medical treatment under section 16 of the SRC Act were not met. The Tribunal's determination was that the Applicant had no present entitlement to compensation for medical expenses from the specified dates in relation to her accepted claims.