Deo and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Deo against a decision by Comcare to reject her claims for compensation. Ms Deo sought compensation for a chronic pain disorder or, in the alternative, a somatic symptom disorder, alleging these conditions arose from her employment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) heard evidence from Ms Deo, her husband, and various medical professionals, with the proceedings spanning several days and involving extensive documentation.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Deo's claimed chronic pain disorder or somatic symptom disorder were conditions for which Comcare was liable to pay compensation, and whether these conditions were causally related to her employment. This involved assessing the reliability of Ms Deo's evidence, the consistency of her reported symptoms and medical history, and the weight to be given to the various medical opinions presented, particularly in light of differing diagnostic frameworks used by medical practitioners and Comcare.

The Tribunal's decision was heavily influenced by the medical evidence. It noted that many expert opinions were based on incomplete past medical histories. The Tribunal also considered the diagnostic coding used by Comcare, which relies on the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases and Injuries, as distinct from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders used by the reporting psychiatrists. The Tribunal found that while an initial diagnosis of major depressive disorder, single episode, was appropriate under the WHO coding, subsequent events indicated an ongoing, severe psychiatric disorder. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted a history of recurrent lower back pain and sciatica predating Ms Deo's employment with the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, with medical records indicating diagnoses of spinal arthritis from 2007. Investigations also revealed spondylosis, a degenerative disease, affecting Ms Deo's cervical and lumbar spine.

The Tribunal ultimately found that Ms Deo's claims for chronic pain disorder and somatic symptom disorder were not established. The Tribunal concluded that the history of recurrent pain, often precipitated by injury or activity but resolving within months, and the presence of degenerative spinal conditions, meant that the claimed disorders were not conditions for which Comcare was liable. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the decision under review.