Kearns and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant, Kearns, against decisions made by the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) regarding workers' compensation. The Applicant had two accepted conditions under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act): a 'lumbar sprain' from 31 July 2006 and an 'aggravation of lumbar sprain' from 6 September 2010. The central dispute revolved around whether the Applicant continued to suffer from the effects of these accepted conditions as at 2 June 2016 and up to the present date, and whether his employment remained a contributing factor to his condition to the requisite degree.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant continued to suffer from the effects of his accepted conditions as at 2 June 2016 and thereafter, and whether any ailment or aggravation of an ailment affecting his lumbar spine was contributed to in a material degree by his employment from 29 June 2006, and to a significant degree by his employment from 16 July 2010. Additionally, the Tribunal was required to consider if the Applicant had obtained reasonable medical treatment, was incapacitated for work, and had unreasonably failed to seek suitable employment or mitigate his loss of income, should his condition not have resolved by 2 June 2016.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence of medical experts, who agreed that prior to the 2006 incident, the Applicant had mild degenerative lumbar spondylosis. They also agreed that the 2006 incident resulted in a lumbar sprain or soft tissue injury, which aggravated the underlying degenerative condition, and that this sprain was contributed to in a material degree by his employment. However, the Respondent's medical experts were unanimous in their opinion that the factors contributing to the Applicant's ongoing back condition were his underlying degenerative condition, constitutional factors, age, weight, and other health conditions, and that the two workplace incidents no longer contributed to his back condition in June 2016 or to date. While one expert maintained the workplace incidents remained significant, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had unreasonably failed to seek suitable employment from July 2011 to the present.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that no compensation was payable by the Respondent to the Applicant under sections 16 and 19 of the Act, and the Reviewable Decisions were affirmed.