Maffescioni and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Maffescioni against a determination by Comcare to cease his compensation entitlements under the Act for medical treatment and household services. Mr Maffescioni had suffered an elbow injury in 1994, which he claimed led to chronic pain, depression, and anxiety, impacting his ability to work. He had previously received compensation for psychiatric illness and for gardening, woodcutting, and window cleaning services. Comcare's decision to cease these entitlements was based on medical reports suggesting no ongoing compensable condition.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Maffescioni continued to suffer from a compensable condition arising from his 1994 injury that entitled him to ongoing compensation for medical treatment under section 16 of the Act, and for household services and attendant care under section 29 of the Act. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence presented, including medical reports and the applicant's failure to provide oral testimony.

The Tribunal's reasoning centred on the applicant's failure to provide oral evidence, which led to the application of the principle established in *Jones v Dunkel* (1959) 101 CLR 298, allowing adverse inferences to be drawn. While acknowledging supportive medical reports from Dr Sally Carter, the Tribunal noted that these had not been tested by cross-examination. In contrast, the Tribunal gave weight to the reports from Drs Kostos and Fraser, and Associate Professor Mendelson, which indicated that Mr Maffescioni no longer suffered from a compensable condition. Considering the age of the injury and the applicant's lack of evidence, the Tribunal concluded that there were no grounds to vary or set aside Comcare's decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning Mr Maffescioni's compensation entitlements for medical treatment and household services were not reinstated.