Fuller and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against a decision by Comcare to deny compensation for a condition diagnosed as mild ulnar neuritis in the left upper limb and a triangular fibrocartilage tear in the left wrist. The central dispute was whether the applicant's employment contributed to her condition to a "significant degree," as defined by the relevant legislation, or if the condition was caused or significantly contributed to by her moving house shortly before the onset of symptoms.

The court was required to determine the meaning of "significant degree" in the context of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth), which stipulated that this meant "substantially more than material." The court also had to assess the conflicting medical evidence regarding the cause of the applicant's ailment, specifically whether her work activities or the act of moving house was the primary contributing factor.

The Senior Member considered the applicant's employment duties, which involved extensive computer use, and the timing of her symptoms, which coincided with a house move. Medical opinions varied: some suggested the house move was the main contributor due to increased upper limb use, while others, based on the applicant's history, concluded her work activities were the cause and that moving house was not a contributing factor. The Senior Member found that the applicant's account of the house move, where she stated she supervised and only unpacked small items, was inconsistent with it being the primary cause of her condition. Conversely, the nature of her work, involving frequent scrolling and data entry, was considered a plausible cause. The Senior Member ultimately affirmed Comcare's decision, finding that the applicant had not established that her employment contributed to her condition to a significant degree.