Peipman and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against decisions made by Comcare regarding compensation for a workplace injury. The Applicant had sustained a lower back injury during his employment with the ATO, which later led to secondary psychiatric conditions and impotence. The core dispute revolved around whether the Applicant's subsequent medical condition, specifically status epilepticus, was a consequence of his original compensable injury and the treatment received for it, or if it arose from other causes.

The Tribunal was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to ascertain whether the Applicant's claimed condition, status epilepticus, arose out of or in the course of his employment, or if his employment contributed to it to a significant degree, in accordance with sections 5A, 5B, 6, and 7 of the *Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (the Act). Secondly, the Tribunal had to consider Comcare's liability to pay compensation for this condition under section 14 of the Act. This involved assessing the diagnosis of the claimed condition and whether the medical treatment received by the Applicant was in relation to his original compensable injury, as contemplated by section 16 of the Act, and whether his incapacity for work resulted from that original injury, pursuant to section 19 of the Act.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the divergent medical opinions presented regarding the cause of the Applicant's status epilepticus. It preferred the diagnosis of Dr Alderman over that of Professor Howes, finding Dr Alderman's assessment to be based on more objective and carefully considered factors. Dr Alderman's analysis highlighted the lack of a convincing temporal relationship between the Applicant's venlafaxine treatment and the onset of symptoms consistent with serotonin syndrome, the implausibility of serotonin syndrome given the long interposing period, and the failure to satisfy established diagnostic criteria such as the Sternbach criteria. The Tribunal concluded that while several theories existed for the status epilepticus, none could be established on the balance of probabilities, and it was not satisfied that venlafaxine toxicity was the cause.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside Comcare's decision of 23 October 2015, remitting the matter for reconsideration on the basis that the Applicant continued to suffer from his previously accepted back injury, psychiatric injuries, and impotence. However, it affirmed Comcare's decision of 13 March 2015. The parties were allowed 21 days to make submissions regarding an order for costs.