Ranger and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Ranger to the Tribunal concerning Comcare's decision to cease her treatment and incapacity payments. Comcare had affirmed its initial determination, preferring the opinion of Dr Reiter over Ms Ranger's treating general practitioner. Ms Ranger sought review of this decision, providing further evidence and oral testimony regarding the ongoing impact of her condition on her daily life, including significant pain, sleep disturbance, and limitations in performing domestic tasks and driving.

The Tribunal was required to determine Ms Ranger's current medical condition and whether it arose from her previously accepted workplace injury. This involved navigating conflicting medical opinions regarding whether Ms Ranger suffered from fibromyalgia or cervicobrachial regional pain syndrome with lateral epicondylitis, and whether her current symptoms were work-related. The Tribunal also had to consider the extent of Ms Ranger's ongoing need for household and gardening assistance.

The Tribunal acknowledged the ideological differences among medical experts regarding the diagnosis of fibromyalgia. It considered the extensive medical evidence, noting that one group of experts, including Dr Reiter, believed Ms Ranger suffered from fibromyalgia, which they considered a constitutional condition not necessarily work-related. Conversely, another group, including Professor Cohen, viewed her condition as cervicobrachial regional pain syndrome, with Professor Cohen expressing reservations about the "fibromyalgia brand" altogether. The Tribunal noted that Ms Ranger consistently described pain in her upper body since the onset of her condition, which she attributed to her workplace injury.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside Comcare's decisions. It found that Ms Ranger continued to suffer from cervicobrachial regional pain syndrome and remained entitled to compensation for medical treatment expenses and incapacity for work from 7 April 2015. Regarding household and gardening assistance, the Tribunal remitted the matter to Comcare for a fresh assessment of Ms Ranger's ongoing needs and entitlement. Comcare was also ordered to pay Ms Ranger's costs.