Noonan and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Noonan against a decision by the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) to deny liability for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act). The dispute centred on whether Mr Noonan continued to suffer the effects of an accepted workplace injury, whether this condition required medical treatment, and whether it resulted in an incapacity for employment. Mr Noonan, an ambulance officer, had a history of peripheral neuropathy, diagnosed in 2006, which caused pain and altered sensation in his feet. This condition was later complicated by the amputation of his second toe on the left foot in 2010 and the subsequent development of a Charcot foot, requiring further surgery and ongoing podiatry care. The ACT had denied further compensation, leading to the present proceedings before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine three key issues: first, whether Mr Noonan's condition, stemming from his accepted injury, persisted; second, if so, whether he required reasonable medical treatment in relation to that condition; and third, whether the condition caused him to be incapacitated for employment. These questions were to be assessed in light of the provisions of the SRC Act, specifically sections 16 and 19, which provide for compensation for medical treatment and incapacity for work, respectively. The Tribunal considered evidence regarding Mr Noonan's ongoing symptoms, his medical history including the diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes in 2020, and the impact of his foot condition on his ability to perform his duties as a paramedic.

The Tribunal found that Mr Noonan continued to suffer the effects of his accepted injury, which had been aggravated by the development of a Charcot foot and the amputation of his toe. The Tribunal reasoned that the ongoing pain, difficulty walking, and the need for continued podiatry care and orthotics constituted a requirement for medical treatment that was reasonable in the circumstances. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Noonan's condition resulted in an incapacity for employment, noting his graduated return to work and the ongoing impact of his foot deformity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision that the ACT remained liable to pay compensation to Mr Noonan under sections 16 and 19 of the SRC Act. The Tribunal also indicated it would make an order regarding costs following further submissions from the parties.