MacFarlane and TNT Australia Pty Ltd (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, MacFarlane, against determinations made by the respondent, TNT Australia Pty Ltd, concerning claims for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The applicant had lodged claims for a back injury sustained in 2009, and a subsequent psychiatric condition described as adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. The respondent had previously determined that the applicant was not entitled to compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss in relation to the psychiatric condition, and later affirmed a determination that the applicant no longer suffered the effects of the 2009 back injury, thus ceasing liability for compensation under sections 16 and 19 of the Act.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant continued to suffer the effects of the 2009 compensable back injury, and whether any such effects were contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment with the respondent. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the applicant's psychiatric condition, an adjustment disorder/depression, was a sequela of the compensable injury and if it continued to be significantly contributed to by his employment. Finally, the court had to assess whether the applicant's injury resulted in a permanent impairment and, if so, the degree of whole person impairment.

The court reasoned that the 2009 back injury, which aggravated a pre-existing degenerative condition, had resulted in a permanent injury. This conclusion was supported by the considered assessments of medical experts, including Dr Shaw and Dr McEntee, who opined that the applicant continued to suffer the effects of the 2009 injury. The court found that the applicant's capacity to work had declined significantly since the 2009 injury, leading to an incapacity for work as defined by the Act, and therefore the respondent was liable to pay compensation under section 19. Regarding the psychiatric condition, the court linked it to the lumbar spine condition and determined that permanent impairment could not be assessed until the applicant had undergone all reasonable rehabilitative treatment for both conditions. Consequently, the psychiatric condition did not yet meet the criteria for permanence under section 24(2)(c) of the Act.

The court set aside the respondent's determination to cease liability for compensation under sections 16 and 19 in relation to the back injury, finding the applicant had an incapacity for work. The court affirmed the respondent's decision regarding the claim for permanent impairment and non-economic loss for the psychiatric condition, as it had not yet reached maximum medical improvement.