Philson and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter came before Mr S. Webb, Member, concerning a dispute between Mr Philson and Comcare regarding compensation for an exacerbation of hypertension. The background facts indicate that Mr Philson experienced workplace stress and tension, which coincided with elevated blood pressure readings. While initial medical assessments in April 1987 recorded normal blood pressure, subsequent records from July 1989 onwards showed readings above the hypertension threshold. Mr Philson was admitted to hospital in September 1989 with chest pain, and medical reports at that time noted a background of hypertension diagnosed approximately two years prior, with treatment commencing only two months before his admission.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mr Philson's hypertension constituted an "injury" for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act), and if so, whether the exacerbation of this condition was ongoing and therefore continued to attract liability for compensation from Comcare. Specifically, the court needed to determine the date from which the accepted exacerbation of hypertension injury persisted and whether this persistence entitled Mr Philson to compensation under section 16 of the SRC Act.

The Member reasoned that the mechanism of exacerbation of Mr Philson's hypertension was ongoing, and therefore the 'injury' for which Comcare was liable continued. The court applied the principle that if an injury persists, the entitlement to compensation also persists. The decision under review was set aside, and it was determined that Mr Philson's accepted exacerbation of hypertension injury persisted as of 22 January 2016 and continued to the present.

Consequently, Mr Philson was found to be entitled to compensation under section 16 of the SRC Act from 22 January 2016 onwards, subject to Comcare's proper determination of any such claim on its merits.