Shales and Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review by Ms Shales against a decision by Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) to affirm its determination that she was not entitled to compensation for a permanent impairment exceeding a 10% Whole Person Impairment threshold. The dispute centred on whether Ms Shales continued to suffer from an injury that resulted in a permanent impairment, and if so, whether that impairment met the legislative threshold for compensation.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Shales' condition constituted an injury under sections 5A and 5B of the relevant Act, meaning it was a disease or ailment contributed to to a significant degree by her employment. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to assess whether any resulting impairment was permanent, as defined by the Act, and if it exceeded the 10% Whole Person Impairment threshold, considering the factors outlined in subsection 24(2) of the Act, including the duration of the impairment, the likelihood of improvement, and whether all reasonable rehabilitative treatment had been undertaken.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including expert medical reports and Ms Shales' own statements, noting inconsistencies between her evidence and medical records regarding her history of psychological distress, fertility issues, and relationship dynamics. The Tribunal found that Ms Shales had not undertaken all reasonable rehabilitative treatment and that her present workplace was supportive, with her being certified fit for full-time work. The Tribunal also noted that while Ms Shales might continue to suffer from symptoms, there was no evidence that she had a permanent impairment exceeding the 10% threshold.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision.