Lock and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by an employee of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources against Comcare. The applicant sought compensation for various injuries, including a rotator cuff tear and lumbar sprain, which arose from a fall at work. The central dispute revolved around whether certain proposed medical treatments, specifically ultrasound-guided PRP injections for a gluteus minimus tendon issue, constituted reasonable medical treatment for accepted work-related injuries. The case was heard by Deputy S Boyle P.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's hip symptoms were the result of a compensable injury under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act), and consequently, whether the proposed PRP injections were reasonable medical treatment for such an injury. The court was required to determine the causal link between the applicant's fall on 30 December 2014 and the development of her hip symptoms, including a low-grade tear in the gluteus minimus tendon and an extensive tear of the acetabular labrum.

The court's reasoning focused on the temporal relationship between the fall and the emergence of the applicant's hip symptoms. It noted that while the applicant experienced lumbar pain radiating to her buttock for several months after the fall, distinct hip symptoms around her right trochanteric region developed later and were initially treated with positive results. Furthermore, MRI scans revealed identifiable physiological changes in the gluteus minimus tendon and acetabular labrum, but the court was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that these changes were attributable to the fall on 30 December 2014. The court acknowledged that hip pain could potentially be a manifestation or radiation from the accepted lumbar sprain, but this was distinct from the claimed hip injury as a separate condition.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the identified physiological changes in the applicant's right hip were attributable to the work accident on 30 December 2014. Therefore, the proposed treatment for these specific hip injuries was not considered reasonable medical treatment for a compensable injury in the context of these applications.