Re Whitlock and Comcare

This matter concerned an application for review by the applicant, Ms. Whitlock, against a decision by Comcare. The dispute centred on whether Ms. Whitlock had suffered an "ailment" or an "aggravation" of an ailment, and whether her employment had contributed to a significant degree to this condition, thereby constituting a "disease" for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act). The case was heard by Linda Kirk SM.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were: firstly, whether the applicant had suffered an "ailment" or an "aggravation" of an ailment within the meaning of section 4 of the SRC Act; secondly, whether the applicant's employment contributed to a significant degree to any such ailment or aggravation, thus qualifying as a "disease" under section 5B(1) of the SRC Act; and thirdly, if a disease was established, whether it was excluded from being an "injury" by operation of section 7(7) of the SRC Act.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the second issue, determining that the applicant's employment did not contribute to a significant degree to her alleged ailment or aggravation. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not suffered a "disease" as defined by the SRC Act. As this crucial threshold was not met, the Tribunal concluded that it did not need to consider the applicability of section 7(7) of the Act.

Accordingly, the Reviewable Decision was affirmed, meaning that the applicant did not suffer an "injury" for the purposes of section 5A(1)(a) of the SRC Act for which Comcare was liable to pay compensation.