Quinn and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review by Mr Quinn against a decision by Australia Post regarding his claim for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act). Mr Quinn, a mail sorter, alleged he sustained a lower back injury on 4 January 2021 while lifting a box of dog food at the Dandenong South Parcel Delivery Centre. Australia Post initially accepted liability for a "Mechanical Lower Back Strain" on 22 January 2021. Mr Quinn sought review of a subsequent decision by Australia Post, arguing that his medical evidence had not been adequately considered.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Quinn had suffered an injury, and if so, whether his employment with Australia Post contributed to that condition or the aggravation of a pre-existing condition to a significant degree. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the injury arose out of, or in the course of, his employment, and if Australia Post was liable to pay compensation. The court also had to consider conflicting medical evidence regarding the nature of Mr Quinn's condition, including whether it was a disease or an injury simpliciter, and the extent to which pre-existing degenerative conditions, smoking, and obesity might have contributed to his back pain.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Canute v Comcare* (2006) 226 CLR 535 regarding the definition of "injury" under the SRC Act, distinguishing between an "injury simpliciter" and a "disease." An injury simpliciter requires the injury to arise out of, or in the course of, employment, whereas a disease requires employment to have contributed to the condition to a significant degree. The Tribunal found that the Safety Event/Investigation – Output Form provided by Mr Quinn's supervisor constituted evidence of a precipitating incident that arose out of the course of his employment. This form detailed the event of Mr Quinn feeling a "pop" in his lower back while lifting a box, followed by immediate stiffness and removal from lifting duties. The Tribunal considered the medical reports and submissions from counsel, including those suggesting degenerative changes were genetic and related to lifestyle factors, but ultimately focused on whether the incident itself constituted an injury under the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the second decision, finding that Mr Quinn had suffered an injury simpliciter arising out of, or in the course of, his employment with Australia Post. The court determined that the initial acceptance of liability under section 14 of the SRC Act for a mechanical lower back strain was appropriate, notwithstanding arguments about pre-existing degenerative conditions.