Priestly and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Priestly against a decision by Comcare regarding her workers' compensation claim. The dispute centred on whether Ms Priestly continued to suffer from a chronic pain syndrome and a secondary psychological condition, and whether these conditions were still caused by her employment. The case was heard by Member Mark Hyman.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether Ms Priestly's chronic pain syndrome constituted a compensable injury, given Comcare's argument that it was merely a subjective feeling without a demonstrable physical or psychiatric change linked to employment. The court also had to consider whether Ms Priestly's reported symptoms were reliable and genuine, and whether her psychological condition, which was accepted as stemming from her pain condition, remained compensable. Furthermore, the court was required to assess whether Ms Priestly was still suffering from incapacity and entitled to reasonable medical treatment at the time of the decision under review, and to determine the admissibility and weight of surveillance material introduced by Comcare.

Member Hyman reasoned that the diagnosis of "chronic pain syndrome" was well-established and, for the purposes of the case, did not carry inherent causal baggage. The court found that Ms Priestly's original acute injury in March 2003 met the definition of an "injury" arising from employment. The subsequent chronic pain condition, which developed a few months later, was considered an "ailment" that was materially contributed to by her employment. Crucially, the court found that the continuity of Ms Priestly's symptoms from the initial injury to the present day was not exaggerated, and that variations in her reporting were consistent with someone experiencing an ongoing condition. The court rejected Comcare's contention that the continuity of symptoms had been exaggerated, noting that Professor McGill's report supported the view that the pattern of symptom reporting had remained similar since 2003.

The court set aside the decision under review and substituted its own decision. It found that Ms Priestly's chronic pain condition was a disease under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) and that its causation continued to be linked to her employment. Consequently, the court determined that Ms Priestly was entitled to compensation for medical treatment and incapacity.