Cashin and Comcare (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed four decisions made by Comcare concerning the Applicant's claims for compensation. The Applicant had suffered a compensable injury to her feet in March 2003, and later claimed incapacity for work and entitlement to medical expenses and permanent impairment benefits related to both her feet and a subsequent lower back condition. Comcare had denied these claims, asserting that the Applicant's incapacity and claimed conditions were no longer a result of the original accepted injury.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant continued to suffer incapacity for work as a result of her accepted feet injury, whether her claimed lower back injury arose out of the employment incident, and whether she had sustained a permanent impairment meeting the threshold for compensation. The Tribunal was required to determine if Comcare's decisions to deny ongoing compensation for medical expenses, incapacity payments, and permanent impairment benefits were correct.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence presented, particularly the expert medical opinions. It accepted the evidence of Associate Professor Elton Edwards, an orthopaedic surgeon called by the Applicant, who provided an opinion on the Applicant's ongoing condition. Based on this accepted evidence, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did continue to suffer from the effects of her compensable feet injury. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside Comcare's decisions.