Keceski and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned two applications before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, brought by Ms Keceski against Comcare. The dispute arose from Comcare's decision to cease Ms Keceski's compensation entitlements following a 'No Present Entitlement' (NPE) certificate issued on 12 August 2020, and its subsequent refusal to accept liability for a claimed chronic pain condition. Ms Keceski had previously received compensation for repetitive strain injury (RSI) and wrist sprains in her right arm, accepted by Comcare in 2014 and 2018 respectively. The NPE decision concluded that Ms Keceski no longer suffered from any injury to which her employment contributed significantly, terminating her entitlements to medical treatment, incapacity benefits, and household services.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Keceski continued to suffer from the effects of her accepted arm injuries as of 12 August 2020, and if so, whether these injuries resulted in any incapacity for work or the need for reasonable medical treatment or care services. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider whether Comcare was liable to pay compensation for a newly claimed condition of 'Bilateral Chronic Pain, Bilateral RSI', first noticed in January 2015, and whether this condition constituted an 'injury' under the relevant legislation.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the critical question of causation. While Ms Keceski argued that her chronic pain condition was a direct result of her original work injuries and that the chain of causation remained unbroken, Comcare relied on medical evidence suggesting her current presentation was unrelated to those physical injuries. The Tribunal acknowledged the conflicting medical opinions presented by various specialists, particularly regarding the link between repetitive keyboard and mouse use and the development of chronic pain. The central issue was whether the accepted injuries continued to cause incapacity or impairment, or if the chronic pain condition itself constituted a new injury for which Comcare could be held liable.

Ultimately, the Tribunal reviewed Comcare's NPE decision and the subsequent refusal to accept the chronic pain condition claim. The outcome of these reviews determined whether Ms Keceski's compensation entitlements would be reinstated or if the claims for ongoing incapacity and the chronic pain condition would be dismissed.