Millar and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Millar against decisions made by Comcare regarding her entitlement to compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The dispute involved three claimed conditions: a thoracic condition, a chronic pain condition alleged to be a sequela of the thoracic condition, and a tear of the medial meniscus in her left knee. The case was heard by Deputy Gary Humphries P.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the three claimed conditions constituted injuries for the purposes of the Act, whether Ms Millar’s thoracic condition had resolved, and whether she suffered from a chronic pain condition as a sequela of that thoracic condition. A further issue was whether Ms Millar was a witness of credit, given multiple instances of inconsistent and irreconcilable accounts provided in her evidence.

The court found that Ms Millar's claims, particularly concerning the chronic pain condition, rested heavily on her own evidence of experiencing pain, making her credit a threshold question. The Tribunal concluded that Ms Millar was not a witness of credit, noting significant inconsistencies in her evidence and discrepancies in medical examinations regarding her physical capacity, which were difficult to explain on a purely physical basis. The court affirmed the reviewable decisions relating to the thoracic and chronic pain conditions. However, the Tribunal set aside the reviewable decision concerning the knee condition.

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Millar’s employment by the AFP had contributed to a significant degree to the development of a tear of the medial meniscus in her left knee. A notional date of injury of 15 March 2010 was made due to the uncertainty of the exact date. The Tribunal reserved its decision on costs.