Berkes and Comcare (Compensation) (Compensation)

This matter concerned appeals by the applicant, Mr Berkes, against decisions by Comcare to deny compensation claims under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The claims related to chronic pain syndrome, a pain management program, and the aggravation of major depressive disorder. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant's conditions were caused by, or contributed to, to a significant degree by prior injuries, as required by section 5B of the Act.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had satisfied the test under section 5B of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) for each of the compensation claims. This involved assessing whether the applicant's claimed conditions were caused or contributed to, to a significant degree, by injuries sustained in the course of his employment.

The Deputy President considered the evidence of several medical practitioners, including Dr Allan, Dr Ho, Dr Ventura, Dr Richmond, and Dr McGill. The applicant argued that Dr Richmond's evidence should be preferred over Dr McGill's. However, the Deputy President found Dr McGill's opinion, as an experienced rheumatologist whose evidence was received without objection, to be entitled to significant consideration. The Deputy President rejected the submission that Dr McGill's evidence should be disregarded because he was not a pain specialist. Ultimately, the Deputy President found Dr McGill's evidence to be the most helpful of the three medical witnesses considered, and for reasons including the applicant's representative not cross-examining Dr McGill, preferred his evidence over that of Dr Richmond and Dr Ho. Consequently, all three reviewable decisions were affirmed.