Blasco and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation)

This matter concerned a claim for compensation brought by Ms Blasco against the Australian Postal Corporation. Ms Blasco alleged she suffered injuries to her neck, shoulders, arms, elbows, and wrists, including carpal tunnel syndrome and plantar fasciitis, as well as a psychological injury. The Australian Postal Corporation denied liability, disputing whether Ms Blasco suffered the claimed conditions, whether her employment caused or contributed to them, and whether any psychological injury was outside the bounds of normal functioning. The decision was heard by J F Toohey SM.

The court was required to determine whether Ms Blasco suffered a "frank injury" to her upper limbs or whether the conditions she claimed constituted diseases within the meaning of the relevant legislation, and if so, whether the nature and conditions of her employment contributed to them to a significant degree. Additionally, the court had to assess whether Ms Blasco suffered a psychological injury and, if so, whether her employment significantly contributed to its development and whether her response fell outside the bounds of normal human behaviour. The court also considered whether her employment aggravated any pre-existing conditions.

The court found that the performance of Ms Blasco's duties did not cause, contribute to a significant degree, or aggravate her claimed shoulder or arm conditions, carpal tunnel syndrome, or plantar fasciitis. This conclusion was based on a detailed examination of the evidence regarding the nature of her work, including the machines she operated and the weights she handled. The court found Ms Blasco's evidence regarding working with her arms above shoulder height to be unreliable and inconsistent with observations and other evidence. Furthermore, the court determined that to the extent Ms Blasco suffered symptoms of anxiety and depression, her employment did not contribute to a significant degree to their development, and her response was not outside the bounds of normal human behaviour.

The decision affirmed the reviewable decision, meaning Ms Blasco's claim for compensation was not upheld on the grounds presented.