Colley and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, Mr Colley, for compensation from Comcare for medical treatment, specifically hip surgery. The dispute centred on whether the Applicant's condition constituted an "injury" as defined by the *Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) and whether that injury arose out of or in the course of his employment with the Commonwealth. The decision was made by Theodore Tavoularis SM.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Applicant continued to suffer from a sprain of the hip and thigh, which was claimed to be the relevant "injury" under section 16 of the Act. If so, the court would have needed to determine if his employment contributed to these conditions and if he required medical treatment or was incapacitated for work during a specified period. Crucially, the court also had to determine if the Applicant was entitled to compensation under section 16 for the hip surgery he underwent.

The court found that the Applicant did not continue to suffer from the claimed sprain of the hip and thigh. Consequently, it was unnecessary to answer the subsequent questions regarding the contribution of his employment or his need for medical treatment and incapacity for work. The court reasoned that because the condition did not meet the definition of an "injury" under section 16 of the Act, Comcare was not liable to compensate the Applicant for the hip surgery, as the treatment was not administered with respect to an injury that arose out of or in the course of his employment.

In accordance with section 43(1) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth), the court affirmed the reviewable decisions dated 4 March 2016.