Knox and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Respondent (Comcare) to affirm a determination that it was not liable to accept claims for left shoulder impingement and left lateral epicondylitis. The Applicant, employed as a Customer Service Officer since 1998, alleged that a heavy workload and changes in work procedures from January to May 2016 led to the onset of pain in her left shoulder and elbow. The Applicant's claim identified the conditions as "L Shoulder, Subacromial Bursitis and L Elbow Lat Epicondylitis," attributing the pain to excessive typing and computer mouse usage. The court was the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, presided over by Deputy President Boyle.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant suffered an injury under section 5A of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). Specifically, it needed to ascertain if the Applicant suffered from a disease or an ailment, or an aggravation of an ailment, that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by her employment. A key question was whether the Applicant's pain, in itself or in conjunction with an underlying pathological condition, constituted an ailment or an aggravation of an ailment for the purposes of the Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Applicant's underlying conditions (rotator cuff tendonitis and lateral epicondylitis) were degenerative and not significantly contributed to by her employment, the physical movements associated with her work activities were the proximate cause of her pain. The Tribunal accepted the Applicant's evidence that the increased workload, excessive typing, and constant mouse usage led to the onset of symptoms. Following established precedent, the Tribunal concluded that these work activities contributed to a significant degree to the aggravation of the Applicant's ailment, even if the "root cause" was the underlying degenerative condition. The Tribunal found that the longevity of employment was less indicative of contribution when the issue was aggravation rather than causation of pathology.

The Tribunal set aside the Respondent's decision and substituted it with a determination that the Applicant suffered an injury within the meaning of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth).