Colley and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Colley, against a decision by Comcare regarding compensation for a workplace injury. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant's secondary weight gain constituted an ailment for which Comcare was liable, and specifically whether the applicant's employment had significantly contributed to its onset. The applicant also sought to establish that medication, Duromine, was reasonably required for the accepted condition. The decision was made by Deputy President Bernard J McCabe.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's weight gain was an "ailment" within the meaning of the relevant legislation, whether the applicant's employment had significantly contributed to the development of this condition, and whether the medication Duromine was reasonably required for the accepted condition. These questions were central to determining Comcare's liability for the applicant's medical treatment.

Deputy President McCabe's reasoning focused on the specialist medical evidence, particularly that provided by Dr Navin. The Tribunal accepted Dr Navin's opinion that Duromine was not an appropriate or reasonable medical treatment for the applicant's weight gain in the circumstances of this case. Dr Navin's evidence clarified the specific conditions under which Duromine would be considered appropriate, and it was determined that the applicant's situation did not meet those criteria. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Comcare was not liable to cover the cost of the applicant's Duromine treatment under section 16 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth).

The decision under review was affirmed.