Thompson and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Thompson against a decision by Comcare regarding his claim for workers' compensation. The dispute centred on whether Mr. Thompson had suffered an "injury" or "disease" as defined by the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) due to osteoarthritis of his right hip, which he alleged was contributed to by his employment as a firefighter. The decision was heard by Deputy Rayment QC P.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether Mr. Thompson's employment as a firefighter contributed to his condition of osteoarthritis of the right hip to a "significant degree," as defined by section 5B of the Act, meaning a degree substantially more than material. Secondly, the court had to consider whether Mr. Thompson's employment had accelerated the onset of his symptoms requiring hip replacement surgery, and if so, whether this acceleration constituted a significant contribution.

Deputy Rayment QC P considered the medical evidence from Dr. Bodel and Professor Youssef. While Dr. Bodel opined that the arduous nature of Mr. Thompson's employment likely accelerated the need for hip replacements by three to five years, the Deputy President found this assertion lacked sufficient reliable evidence. Professor Youssef's evidence, while acknowledging that arduous employment might make a small difference to the progression of femoroacetabular impingement leading to osteoarthritis, did not provide a basis for inferring acceleration to a significant degree. The court noted that the studies reviewed by Professor Youssef focused on the cause of osteoarthritis rather than its acceleration. Ultimately, the Deputy President was not satisfied that any acceleration of Mr. Thompson's symptoms was caused by his employment to a significant degree as required by section 5B of the Act.

Consequently, the reviewable decision was affirmed.