Pickering and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the applicant, an employee of Australian Postal Corporation, for compensation in relation to an accepted injury of "aggravation of the underlying degenerative changes in lumbar spine" sustained on 14 August 2014. The applicant also had a prior accepted claim for a workplace back injury on 20 May 2014. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant continued to suffer the effects of the 14 August 2014 injury as at 14 November 2014, and consequently, whether she was entitled to medical expenses under section 16 and compensation for incapacity under section 19 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) from that date onwards.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was entitled to medical expenses and compensation for incapacity as at 14 November 2014, and if so, whether that entitlement extended to the present date. These questions hinged on the determination of whether the applicant's ongoing symptoms and need for treatment were causally linked to the accepted injury of 14 August 2014, particularly in light of conflicting medical evidence regarding the nature and duration of any aggravation.

The Tribunal preferred the opinion of Professor McGill over that of Dr Bodel. Professor McGill, in his reports, stated that the applicant's work duties on both 20 May and 14 August 2014 likely caused a flare of symptoms related to pre-existing degenerative changes, but it was unlikely either episode changed the underlying pathology. He opined that the prolonged period away from work was likely only a few weeks, and certainly less than two months, attributable to the 14 August 2014 incident. Professor McGill concluded that the applicant's current physical state was likely the same as it would have been regardless of the work incidents and that she required reassurance and a graduated return to normal activities, including work. The Tribunal found that the factors Professor McGill discussed were not a result of the 14 August 2014 injury and therefore did not accept that any medical treatment obtained after 14 November 2014 was "in relation to the injury" or that she was incapacitated for work as a result of that injury.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision dated 14 November 2014. This decision was taken to have determined that the applicant did not continue to suffer the effects of the aggravation of her lumbar spine injury as at 14 November 2014, and was therefore not entitled to compensation under sections 16 and 19 of the Act in relation to that accepted injury from that date.