Sutherland and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Sutherland against a decision by Comcare to cease liability for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act). Ms Sutherland had lodged an incident report alleging that glass entry gates at her workplace struck her, resulting in bruising and pain to her right hand, left foot, and left knee. Subsequently, she developed widespread joint pain, which medical practitioners diagnosed as fibromyalgia. The core dispute revolved around whether Ms Sutherland's condition constituted an "injury" as defined by the SRC Act, and whether her employment had contributed to it to a significant degree.

The Tribunal was required to determine three key issues: first, whether Ms Sutherland suffered an "ailment" as defined by the SRC Act; second, if an ailment was established, whether her employment contributed to it to a "significant degree" as required by subsection 5B(1) of the SRC Act; and third, whether Ms Sutherland continued to require medical treatment and was incapacitated for work as a result of the condition. The SRC Act defines "injury" to include a "disease suffered by an employee," and for a disease to be recognised, the ailment must have been contributed to by employment to a degree substantially more than material.

The Tribunal found that it was common ground between the parties that Ms Sutherland suffered from fibromyalgia, which satisfied the definition of an "ailment" under the SRC Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that in a previous consent decision, the parties had agreed that Ms Sutherland's fibromyalgia was significantly contributed to by her employment. Despite Comcare's subsequent determination to cease liability, the Tribunal considered the majority of the medical evidence, which supported the diagnosis of fibromyalgia and its connection to her employment. The Tribunal concluded that Comcare remained liable to pay compensation to Ms Sutherland under the SRC Act.

The Tribunal set aside Comcare's decision and substituted a decision that Comcare remains liable to pay compensation to Ms Sutherland. The parties were invited to make submissions regarding costs.