Dimoff and Miclyn Express Offshore (Australia) Pty Ltd (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Dimoff against Miclyn Express Offshore (Australia) Pty Ltd regarding compensation for a workplace injury. The dispute centred on whether the injury to Mr Dimoff's right knee constituted an "injury" or a "disease" for the purposes of the *Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992* (Cth) (SRC Act), and the extent of his incapacity and entitlement to compensation. The decision was made by Deputy President Christopher Kendall.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine the nature of Mr Dimoff's right knee condition, specifically whether it should be classified as an "injury" or a "disease" under the SRC Act, and consequently, whether section 10(7) of the Act, which could preclude compensation if a "disease" was not disclosed, was applicable. The Tribunal was also required to assess the extent of Mr Dimoff's incapacity for work and his entitlement to compensation for both incapacity and medical treatment arising from the injury.

The Tribunal reasoned that the injury to Mr Dimoff's right knee, involving a posterior horn tear of the medial meniscus, knee joint effusion, injury to the medial patellofemoral joint, and possible sprain of the medial collateral ligament and medial patellofemoral ligament, was best characterised as an "injury" rather than a "disease" as defined by the SRC Act. This classification meant that section 10(7) of the Act did not apply. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous decision under review and substituted its own findings.

The Tribunal ordered that liability existed for the injury sustained by the Applicant to his right knee. Compensation was payable for incapacity for work and for the cost of medical treatment from the date of injury, 17 July 2014, to the present. Furthermore, the Respondent was directed to arrange for an assessment of Mr Dimoff's capability under section 49 of the SRC Act and to make arrangements for a rehabilitation program under section 50. The Respondent was also ordered to pay the Applicant's costs of the proceedings.