Crisp and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Crisp for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act) for an ailment or aggravation of an ailment allegedly suffered due to his employment. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was whether Mr Crisp’s condition constituted an ‘ailment’ or an ‘aggravation’ of an ailment as defined by section 4 of the SRC Act, and if so, whether his employment contributed to it to a significant degree.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine if Mr Crisp suffered from an ailment or an aggravation of an ailment as defined by the SRC Act, and if such an ailment or aggravation was significantly contributed to by his employment. The Tribunal was required to assess the medical evidence presented to ascertain the nature of Mr Crisp’s condition and its causal link to his work.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of a diagnosed medical condition that could be attributed to Mr Crisp's employment. Despite accepting Mr Crisp as a truthful witness and acknowledging his reported symptoms affecting his wrists, forearms, and elbows, the Tribunal found the medical evidence to be against his claim. Three medical specialists were unable to diagnose Mr Crisp's condition, with one stating it did not fit the diagnosis of de Quervain’s tenosynovitis, another finding it inexplicable with no physiological change to explain the pain, and a third being unable to arrive at any diagnosis that adequately explained the complaint. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Crisp had not demonstrated the requisite physiological change to be compensated for an ‘injury’ under section 14 of the SRC Act, nor had he met the test of having an ‘ailment’ significantly contributed to by his employment, particularly as the specific data entry work was not found to be sufficient to cause the condition. The Tribunal also noted that Mr Crisp's long-term drumming hobby, which involves both upper limbs, might be a contributing factor to his undiagnosed condition.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mr Crisp had not satisfied the requirements of the SRC Act to be entitled to compensation.