Spradau and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Spradau against a decision by Comcare regarding his entitlement to compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss arising from a fractured left wrist sustained in 1997. Comcare had accepted the injury but determined that Mr Spradau did not meet the threshold for permanent impairment compensation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Spradau suffered a degree of permanent impairment resulting from the accepted injury, and if so, whether that impairment met the statutory threshold for compensation.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing Mr Spradau's permanent impairment in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Comcare Guide, specifically Tables 9.9.1a, 9.9.1b, and 9.14. This involved considering medical evidence, including reports from Dr Garth Eaton and Dr Simon Journeaux, and determining the appropriate methodology for calculating whole person impairment. A key issue was whether the assessment should be made under the Comcare Guide or, exceptionally, under the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA5), and if so, whether the correct criteria and tables were applied by the medical assessors.

The Tribunal considered the medical opinions and the applicant's own account of his ongoing symptoms, including pain, loss of function, and the phenomenon he described as his wrist "failing." Dr Journeaux provided a supplementary report concluding that Mr Spradau's impairment was adequately assessed under Table 9.9 of the Comcare Guide, resulting in a 4% whole person impairment. He noted that while Mr Spradau had some permanent impairment, it was minor, and he did not meet the criteria for assessment under Table 9.14. Dr Journeaux also commented on Dr Eaton's previous assessments, suggesting that Dr Eaton had not correctly applied the Comcare Guide's rules for using AMA5 and had potentially misinterpreted findings of instability. The Tribunal found that Mr Spradau's impairment, assessed according to the Comcare Guide, did not reach the 10% whole person impairment threshold required for compensation.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mr Spradau was not entitled to compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss.