Morehead and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Morehead against the Australian Postal Corporation regarding compensation for a wrist condition. The Applicant, a mail officer, alleged that her work, particularly repetitive coding on a machine known as the Spectrum, caused her to develop carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in her right hand. The Respondent disputed that the Applicant's condition was an injury simpliciter, a disease, or an aggravation of an ailment, and argued there was no connection between her work and her CTS. The decision was made by Senior Member Dr Damien Cremean.

The court was required to determine whether the Applicant's carpal tunnel syndrome constituted an "injury" for the purposes of compensation under the relevant Act. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the condition was an injury simpliciter, a disease, or an aggravation of an ailment, and whether her employment with the Respondent contributed to it to a significant degree. The court also had to assess the Respondent's argument that the condition would have occurred regardless of her work.

Senior Member Dr Cremean found that the Applicant suffered from CTS, a condition correctly described as an ailment. While rejecting the notion that the CTS was an injury simpliciter due to the lack of a specific injurious event, the court held that CTS fell within the definition of an ailment under section 4(1) of the Act, being a physical disorder of gradual development. Furthermore, the court considered the Applicant's CTS to be a disease under section 5B(1) of the Act, either as an ailment or an aggravation of an ailment, to which her employment contributed. The court rejected the Respondent's submission that the condition would have occurred irrespective of work, deeming it hypothetical and unsustainable.

Consequently, the court concluded that the Applicant's CTS condition was compensable under section 14 of the Act as an injury occurring in the course of work, resulting in incapacity or impairment. The reviewable decision was set aside and substituted with a decision to the appropriate effect, meaning the Applicant was entitled to compensation.