Delaney and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Delaney, against decisions of the respondent, Comcare, to refuse compensation claims made under the *Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The applicant had accepted conditions of synovitis and tenosynovitis, adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder, and lateral epicondylitis of the left arm. The primary dispute revolved around a claim for aggravation of an asymptomatic degenerative cervical spondylosis, with the applicant alleging that her employment contributed to rendering this condition symptomatic. A secondary dispute concerned a claim for medical expenses related to a nerve block treatment, which Comcare had refused on the basis that it was not treatment in relation to an injury. The decision was made by R West M of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold. Firstly, whether the applicant's employment contributed significantly to the aggravation of her pre-existing, asymptomatic degenerative cervical spondylosis, thereby constituting an "injury" for the purposes of the Act. Secondly, if an injury was established, whether the nerve block treatment constituted "medical treatment" in relation to that injury, as defined by section 5A of the Act, thereby entitling the applicant to compensation for its cost. Comcare also raised alternative arguments regarding the applicant's failure to provide written notice of the alleged neck injury as soon as practicable, or to make a proper claim, as required by sections 53 and 54 of the Act respectively.

The Tribunal considered the nature of the applicant's duties, which involved physically demanding tasks such as handling heavy animal food, cleaning large volumes of animal waste, grooming and bathing animals, hosing down stables, climbing ladders, assisting with veterinary procedures involving lifting animals, and managing strong, pulling dogs. Despite the arduous nature of these duties, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not sustained a neck injury to which her employment contributed to a significant degree. The Tribunal found that the applicant's neck condition was primarily degenerative and constitutional in nature, and that any pain or discomfort experienced did not meet the threshold for an "injury" under the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the nerve block treatment was not medical treatment in relation to an injury as defined by section 5A of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review in matters 2016/5808 and 2018/4562, meaning that Comcare's refusal of the claims for aggravation of cervical spondylosis and for the nerve block treatment was upheld.