Di Carlo and Linfox Australia (Operations) Pty Ltd (Compensation)

This matter concerned a review of a determination regarding the entitlement to compensation for an accepted work-sustained injury to the applicant's left elbow. The applicant, Mr. Di Carlo, contended that he continued to suffer from his accepted condition, which he argued was more than a "minor aggravation," and sought compensation for medical treatment expenses and incapacity payments. The respondent, Linfox Australia (Operations) Pty Ltd, argued that the applicant's ongoing symptoms were attributable to a pre-existing condition and that any work-related aggravation had resolved by 23 July 2018, thus disentitling the applicant to further compensation. The review was heard by Senior Member Matthew Groom.

The court was required to determine three key issues: first, whether the applicant continued to suffer from his accepted left elbow condition as at 23 July 2018; second, if so, whether he required further medical treatment as a consequence of that condition, giving rise to an entitlement to compensation for reasonable medical treatment expenses under section 16 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act); and third, if the previous two issues were answered affirmatively, whether the applicant continued to suffer from an incapacity for employment as a consequence of his accepted left elbow condition, entitling him to incapacity payments under section 19 of the SRC Act.

The court's reasoning focused on the weight of the medical evidence, particularly the reports from Associate Professor Dr. Peter Steadman. Dr. Steadman's initial report, based on an examination and MRI, indicated that the applicant's symptoms were largely due to a constitutional disorder and a pre-existing tendon tear, with only a "minor short-term aggravation" from the work incident, likely resolving within six to eight weeks. While the applicant relied on the report of Mr. John O’Brien and argued the injury was separate from any underlying condition, the Tribunal found Dr. Steadman's assessment more persuasive. The Tribunal was satisfied that, as at 23 July 2018, the applicant was no longer suffering from a condition attributable to his employment that would give rise to a liability for compensation under sections 16 and 19 of the SRC Act.

Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.