Ho and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Addy Ho against the Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post) before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Mr Ho, a postal delivery officer, alleged that he sustained a neck injury in the course of his employment. He claimed that on 16 December 2014, while performing his duties, he experienced tightness and pain in the left side of his neck, which later developed into a headache. Australia Post disputed the causal link between Mr Ho's employment and his symptoms.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Ho's neck and shoulder pain constituted an injury or an aggravation of an ailment arising out of or in the course of his employment with Australia Post. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether his employment was a significant contributing factor to his condition, and whether the available evidence sufficiently established a link between his work activities and the reported symptoms, despite the lack of a definitive diagnosis.

The Tribunal considered evidence from Mr Ho, an orthopaedic surgeon, and a general practitioner. While Mr Ho's recollection of the precise onset of his symptoms was imperfect, he indicated that the pain began during sorting duties. The Tribunal accepted that there was a temporal relationship between his work and the onset of symptoms. However, the medical investigations, including an ultrasound of the left shoulder, were considered inadequate by the expert witnesses, who recommended further imaging of both the cervical spine and the shoulder. Both experts agreed that the symptoms could originate from either the cervical spine or the shoulder, and that degenerative changes in the cervical spine were a possibility. The Tribunal noted that Mr Ho's subjective reporting of pain and his description of the onset pointed towards a cervical spine cause.

The Tribunal found that while there was no definitive diagnosis, the requirement for establishing liability under section 14 of the relevant legislation did not necessitate a precise diagnosis, but rather an injury to a certain area. However, the Tribunal considered that the cervical spine and left shoulder were not "certain areas" in the same way as psychiatric conditions. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Ho's recall of events suggested an underlying cervical spine cause, and therefore, the matter was remitted for further consideration.