Nguyen-Kieu and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, Ms. Nguyen-Kieu, against the Australian Postal Corporation (the Respondent) regarding a claim for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act). The Applicant claimed to have suffered a chronic rotator cuff impingement with wear of the bursal surface of the postero-superior rotator cuff due to her employment. The core dispute revolved around whether the Applicant's condition constituted an "injury" as defined by the SRC Act, and consequently, whether the Respondent was liable to pay compensation. The decision was made by Linda Kirk SM.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant suffered an "injury" as defined in section 5A of the SRC Act. This required determining if her condition was an "injury (other than a disease)" under subsection 5A(1)(b), or a "disease" under subsection 5A(1)(a) and section 5B(1). Further, the Tribunal had to consider if the condition was an "ailment" or an "aggravation" as defined by section 4, and crucially, whether it was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the Applicant's employment with Australia Post, as stipulated by section 5B(3). If these conditions were met, the Tribunal then had to determine if the Respondent was liable to pay compensation under sections 14, 16, 19, and 29 of the SRC Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that while medical evidence indicated the Applicant suffered from age-related degeneration in her shoulder, and not an acute injury like a rotator cuff tear, her repetitive and physically demanding work duties, including prolonged overhead reaching and lifting, contributed to her condition. The Tribunal applied the principles of the SRC Act, focusing on the definition of "injury" and the requirement for employment to contribute significantly to the ailment. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant's employment had significantly contributed to her condition, thus meeting the criteria for a compensable injury.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the reviewable decision. It found that the Applicant had suffered an "injury" within the meaning of section 14 of the SRC Act and that the Respondent was liable to pay compensation for this injury under sections 16, 19, and 29 of the SRC Act. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant's accepted condition was ongoing and that the Respondent remained liable to pay compensation.