Messer and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant, Ms. Messer, against a decision by the Australian Postal Corporation (the Respondent) to deny her compensation claim. The Applicant had been diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and alleged that her employment had contributed to the onset or aggravation of this condition. The Respondent had rejected the claim, asserting that the Applicant had wilfully made a false representation on her compensation claim form and that her employment had not contributed to her condition to a significant degree. The case was heard by Deputy J Sosso P.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had wilfully made a false representation on her compensation claim form, and whether she had suffered an injury or aggravation of a pre-existing ailment, and if so, whether her employment had contributed to this condition to a significant degree, thereby making her eligible for compensation under the relevant legislation. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence presented, including medical reports and the Applicant's own testimony, to determine these questions.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's negative response on the claim form to the question of whether she had a similar injury or illness to CFS, in light of evidence that she had been diagnosed with CFS as a teenager. The Applicant conceded she did not consider her past diagnosis relevant as she was asymptomatic at the time of lodging the claim. However, the Tribunal noted several instances where the Applicant had referred to her past diagnosis of CFS, including in communications with medical centres and in her own submissions to the Tribunal. These references indicated a clear recollection of the diagnosis and past treatments. The Tribunal was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the aggravation of the Applicant's ailment was contributed to, to a significant degree, by her employment.

Consequently, the decision under review, which affirmed the Respondent's rejection of the compensation claim, was affirmed by the Tribunal.