Gambino and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Gambino against a decision by Comcare to deny her claim for compensation for a shoulder condition. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Ms Gambino's employment had contributed to her shoulder ailment to a significant degree, as required by the relevant legislation. The decision was made by D. J. Morris SM.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Gambino suffered from an ailment or an aggravation of an ailment, and if so, whether her employment contributed to this condition to a significant degree, as defined by section 5B of the Act. This required the Tribunal to consider the nature of Ms Gambino's employment, her medical history, and any pre-existing conditions or other factors that might have influenced her shoulder ailment.

The Tribunal considered the extensive medical evidence presented, including reports from various medical practitioners and an occupational therapist. While Ms Gambino provided evidence of her symptoms and the introduction of new software at her workplace, the majority of the medical evidence, with one exception, did not support the assertion that her employment had caused or significantly aggravated her shoulder condition. The Tribunal noted that Ms Gambino had a long history of seeking treatment for various ailments, including neck strain and potential rheumatoid arthritis, and that her current employment involved a reduced number of hours and breaks. The Tribunal applied the legislative test under section 5B, which requires a contribution to a "significant degree," defined as substantially more than material.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the bulk of the medical evidence, combined with the applicant's own evidence regarding her work hours and the physical demands of her role, did not establish that her shoulder condition was caused by or significantly aggravated by her employment. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decision to deny the claim.