Cagliostro and Telstra Corporation Limited (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Cagliostro for compensation from Telstra Corporation Limited, seeking review of a decision made on 25 September 2015. The core dispute revolved around whether, as at 24 August 2015, the applicant continued to suffer from a compensable injury, was incapacitated for work due to that injury, and reasonably required medical treatment for it. The decision was made by A Poljak SM.

The court was required to determine three key issues: first, whether the applicant was still suffering from the compensable injury as at 24 August 2015; second, whether she was incapacitated for work as a result of that injury; and third, whether she reasonably required medical treatment for the injury at that time. These issues arose from Telstra's decision that the applicant had ceased to suffer from the effects of the compensable injury and was therefore not entitled to compensation.

The court's reasoning focused significantly on the discrepancy between the applicant's self-reported symptoms to medical practitioners and her observed activities in surveillance footage. While medical experts generally agreed on a diagnosis of 'post-traumatic migraines', Professor Kiernan expressed doubt about the ongoing necessity of treatments like acupuncture and nerve blocks, given the nature of the original injury and the passage of time. Crucially, surveillance footage from June, July, and August 2015, and May 2016, depicted the applicant engaging in activities inconsistent with her reported daily severe migraines, such as being active outside her home for extended periods, driving, and shopping. Despite attempts by her treating neurologist, Professor Brew, to distinguish between the applicant's capacity for 'routine tasks' and analytical work, the court found little confidence in the accuracy of the applicant's self-reporting, particularly in light of the objective evidence from the surveillance material. The court concluded that the applicant's behaviour in the surveillance footage was not consistent with her reported symptoms, leading to a lack of confidence in the accuracy of her self-reporting to medical practitioners.

The decision under review was affirmed.