Payten and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Mr Payten, against a decision of the Australian Postal Corporation. The dispute centred on whether the applicant continued to suffer from the effects of a closed head injury accepted as having been sustained during his employment on 6 April 1992. The applicant sought compensation under sections 16 and 19 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether the applicant was still suffering from the effects of the accepted injury sustained in 1992, and consequently, whether he was entitled to compensation. This involved assessing the applicant's current physical condition and its relationship, if any, to the accepted workplace injury.

The Deputy President McDermott RFD P considered evidence from several medical professionals and the applicant himself. The Deputy President noted the applicant's belief about future payments and his assertion of ongoing pain and limitations. However, the Deputy President placed significant weight on the unchallenged report of Professor McGill, a Clinical Associate Professor at the University of Sydney. Professor McGill's report detailed the applicant's extensive physical activities, including regular gym attendance, weightlifting, swimming, and participation in bodybuilding competitions. Professor McGill concluded that the applicant was physically fit for all normal work, home, and general activities, and identified bilateral great toe MTP osteoarthritis as a constitutional disorder unrelated to the applicant's activities or the workplace injury. The Deputy President found the applicant's assertions of pain and limitation inconsistent with his demonstrated physical capabilities and concluded that the applicant was not a credible witness.

Based on the evidence, particularly Professor McGill's report, the Deputy President concluded that at the time of the reviewable decision, the applicant no longer suffered from the effects of the injuries sustained in the 1992 accident. Accordingly, the decision under review was affirmed.