Shirreff and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against a decision by Comcare. The Applicant claimed compensation for conditions including rheumatoid arthritis and right elbow epicondylitis, also referred to as angiofibroblastic tendinosis. The core of the dispute was whether these conditions, or the pain experienced by the Applicant, were caused or contributed to, to a significant degree, by her employment as a customer services officer. The decision was made by Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant's claimed conditions, specifically rheumatoid arthritis and right elbow epicondylitis, were caused or contributed to by her employment. A further issue arose regarding whether the pain experienced by the Applicant constituted a compensable injury in itself, distinct from the underlying conditions. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence presented by the Applicant and expert evidence to determine the causal link between her work activities and her medical conditions.

The Tribunal accepted the Applicant was a truthful witness and that she experienced significant pain during her work, particularly when using her keyboard and mouse. However, the Tribunal found that the Applicant's rheumatoid arthritis was not significantly contributed to by her employment. Regarding the epicondylitis, the Tribunal preferred the expert evidence of AP Romas, who concluded that the Applicant suffered from angiofibroblastic tendinosis, a condition that was constitutional or degenerative in nature, with age being a major risk factor, and not caused by her work. Crucially, the Tribunal distinguished between pain experienced at work and a condition being *made worse* by work. It found that while the Applicant's pain increased during work, this was an exacerbation of an underlying condition rather than the work causing or contributing to the condition itself. Therefore, the pain condition was not considered a compensable injury. The Tribunal also placed no weight on untested evidence from Dr Boers and Mr Green.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the Applicant's claimed conditions were not caused or contributed to to a significant degree by her employment.