Flahive and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Flahive for review of a decision by Comcare, which affirmed previous determinations regarding his claim for permanent impairment. Mr Flahive sought compensation for binaural hearing loss and tinnitus allegedly resulting from exposure to acoustic shrieks at work. The core of the dispute revolved around whether these conditions constituted a permanent impairment and, if so, the degree of that impairment, including whether a previously compensated psychiatric impairment could be combined with the auditory impairments to increase his overall percentage of permanent impairment (WPI).

The court was required to determine whether Mr Flahive's binaural hearing loss and tinnitus resulted in a permanent impairment, and to assess the degree of any such impairment. A key legal issue was whether any further conditions, including a pre-existing psychiatric impairment for which Mr Flahive had already received compensation, could be combined with the auditory impairments to increase his WPI under the relevant assessment guides. The court also considered the adequacy of the medical evidence, particularly the assessment conducted by Dr Mackendrick, and Mr Flahive's concerns regarding the completeness of his history and the methodology used in calculating his hearing loss.

The court's reasoning focused on the expert evidence provided by Dr Mackendrick, an ENT specialist. The court found that Dr Mackendrick had comprehensively reviewed Mr Flahive's medical documentation and obtained a detailed history, despite Mr Flahive's dissatisfaction with the length of the interview and the information provided to the specialist. The court accepted Dr Mackendrick's explanation for preferring certain audiologist reports over others, particularly his reasoning that low-frequency hearing loss is not typically caused by noise damage and that his calculations adhered to current recommended procedures. The court was satisfied that Dr Mackendrick had considered all relevant impairments and concluded that there were no additional impairments that could be combined to increase Mr Flahive's WPI.

The court affirmed the Reviewable Decision made by Comcare.