Fellowes v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission

The matter under consideration is Fellowes v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, where Ms Fellowes, a serving member of the Australian Army, has challenged a decision regarding compensation for her permanent impairments resulting from two separate knee injuries. The legal issues revolve around the interpretation of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) and its application to the assessment of compensation for multiple injuries leading to the same level of impairment. Specifically, the court must determine whether the injuries should be assessed individually or as a combined impairment.

The court examined the statutory framework and relevant case law, particularly the High Court's decision in Canute v Comcare and the Full Court's decision in Van Grinsven v Comcare. The Deputy President highlighted that the Act requires a two-step inquiry: first, whether an injury has occurred, and second, if a permanent impairment results from that injury, the degree of impairment is assessed. The court emphasised that the Act compensates for injuries based on the extent of the permanent impairment, as measured by the Guide. The Deputy President concluded that the statutory scheme is not about compensating for injuries that cause permanent impairment but rather compensating for injuries to the extent of the permanent impairment.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent. The court found that the reasoning in Van Grinsven was consistent with the statutory framework and the High Court's decision in Canute. The decision underscores the importance of assessing each injury separately and determining the extent of impairment resulting from each injury, in line with the statutory criteria and the Guide.