Re Cross and Comcare

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by an applicant who claimed compensation from Comcare for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The applicant had been employed by the Australian Public Service since 1982 and by the Department of Human Services from 1989 until her retirement in 2016. She reported experiencing symptoms in her right hand in February 2016, followed by similar symptoms in her left hand in March 2016, and subsequently lodged a workers' compensation claim for both wrists.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had suffered an "injury" for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) and, if so, whether her employment had contributed to that injury to a significant degree. The definition of "injury" under section 5A of the Act includes a disease suffered by an employee, or a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment, or an aggravation of such an injury that arose out of, or in the course of, employment.

The Tribunal considered the medical evidence, including joint reports and oral testimony from various medical professionals, which confirmed that the applicant suffered from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. However, the medical opinions diverged on the question of causation, specifically the link between the applicant's employment and her condition. The Tribunal reasoned that carpal tunnel syndrome is a condition characterised by median nerve compression at the wrist, which can be caused by various factors, including repetitive or forceful wrist movements. Despite the applicant's symptoms and the medical consensus that she had the condition, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not suffered an injury for the purposes of the Act on any identifiable date, nor had her employment contributed to her carpal tunnel syndrome or its aggravation to a significant degree. Consequently, the Tribunal found that she had not suffered a "disease" as defined by the Act.

For the reasons outlined, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning Comcare was not liable to pay compensation for the applicant's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.