Shields and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned a review of a decision by a delegate of Comcare, which affirmed an earlier decision denying the applicant compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss under sections 24 and 27 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act) in relation to her left shoulder condition. The applicant, aged 75, had a history of right shoulder and arm injuries sustained during her employment as a data input operator with ASIC, for which compensation had been accepted. She subsequently lodged claims for compensation concerning her left shoulder.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's left shoulder condition resulted in a permanent impairment of 10% or greater, thereby entitling her to compensation under section 24 of the SRC Act, and if so, what her entitlement to compensation for non-economic loss under section 27 of the SRC Act would be. The Tribunal considered medical evidence from consultant orthopaedic surgeon Mr Iain Kelman and the applicant's General Practitioner, Dr Buras, detailing the applicant's symptoms, treatment, and functional limitations related to both shoulders.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the degree of permanent impairment attributable to the left shoulder condition. While acknowledging the applicant experienced pain and reduced range of movement in her left shoulder, the medical evidence, including Mr Kelman's assessment, indicated that her right shoulder condition had a permanent impairment of 11%. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish that the applicant's left shoulder condition, in isolation, met the threshold of a 10% or greater whole person impairment as required by section 24(7) of the SRC Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for eligibility for compensation for permanent impairment or non-economic loss in connection with her left shoulder condition. The decision under review, which affirmed the denial of these claims, was therefore affirmed.