Heldt and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning a claim for compensation by the Applicant, Mr Heldt, against Comcare. The Applicant alleged that he first experienced symptoms in his right shoulder while working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the condition progressively worsening until he sought medical attention in August 2020 and was subsequently diagnosed with a SLAP labral tear. The dispute centred on competing medical opinions regarding the causation of this injury.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant's SLAP labral tear constituted an injury within the meaning of the relevant legislation, and specifically, whether his employment contributed to the development of this condition in a manner that was substantially more than material. This involved assessing the credibility of the Applicant as a witness and weighing the conflicting expert medical evidence presented by various orthopaedic specialists and the Applicant's general practitioner.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's condition was a gradual process rather than an acute event. It accepted the evidence of the Applicant's treating surgeons, Mr Chua and Mr Wang, and orthopaedic specialist Mr Moaveni, who opined that the Applicant's work-from-home setup, involving prolonged use of his arm in an elevated and awkward position, was consistent with the cause of his injury. This opinion was preferred over that of Associate Professor Wren, who suggested a pre-existing tear might have been aggravated by work, but relied on less direct evidence and a more limited literature search. The Tribunal placed significant weight on the personal examinations conducted by the treating specialists, noting their expertise in shoulder surgery, and found their collective opinion more persuasive than Associate Professor Wren's, who conducted a single telehealth consultation.

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's employment contribution to the development of his right shoulder condition was substantially more than material. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review.