SFDG and Comcare (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a claim for compensation brought by SFDG (the Applicant) against Comcare (the Respondent). The Applicant sought compensation for a condition affecting her neck, shoulder, right arm, and hand, which she claimed arose from her employment. The Respondent had previously determined no liability for compensation under section 14 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act), a decision that was under review.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine the correct diagnosis of the Applicant's condition, whether that condition constituted an "injury" (other than a disease) or a "disease" for the purposes of the SRC Act, and whether the Applicant's employment contributed to the onset of her condition to a significant degree. The Applicant's reported symptoms included chest pain, neck pain, shoulder pain, and tingly fingers, which she first noticed on 28 February 2018.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the medical evidence presented. It noted that while the Applicant experienced symptoms in the workplace, the central dispute revolved around the diagnosis and pathology of her condition. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not presented specialist evidence to support her claim, relying primarily on her general practitioner's opinion, which the Tribunal considered less authoritative than that of an occupational physician, Dr Forbes. The Tribunal accepted Dr Forbes's evidence regarding the diagnosis and causation of conditions such as de Quervain's tenosynovitis and carpal tunnel syndrome. Crucially, the Tribunal accepted Dr Forbes's diagnosis of the Applicant's condition as lateral extensor tendinopathy. The Tribunal further accepted Dr Forbes's evidence that this condition is degenerative and idiopathic, meaning it arises spontaneously with no known cause. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's lateral extensor tendinopathy should be considered a disease, and that the Applicant's employment did not contribute to its onset to a significant degree, nor did it arise from a particular event or injury.

Based on this reasoning, the Tribunal found that the Applicant's lateral extensor tendinopathy ailment was not an "injury" for the purposes of sections 5A or 5B of the SRC Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision, holding that the Applicant did not suffer an injury in relation to her diagnosed condition, and therefore no liability for compensation arose under section 14 of the SRC Act.