Thompson and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Douglas Thompson against Comcare, heard by Emeritus Professor P A Fairall, Senior Member. The applicant, a former aviation firefighter, sought compensation for osteoarthritis in both hips. While compensation for the left hip had been accepted, Comcare had rejected the claim for the right hip. The applicant had undergone bilateral hip replacements, the second for the right hip occurring after the initial rejection of his claim for that injury.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's employment as an aviation firefighter was a significant contributing factor to the development of osteoarthritis in his right hip, and consequently, whether Comcare's decision to deny liability for that condition was correct. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented, including expert medical opinions, and determine if the applicant's arduous work duties, which involved significant physical exertion and maintenance of high fitness levels, had contributed to the degenerative condition in his right hip to a degree that warranted compensation under the relevant Commonwealth employment legislation.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence presented, particularly the expert reports. Professor Youssef, engaged by Comcare, opined that while the applicant had femoroacetabular impingement predisposing him to osteoarthritis, his employment was at most a minor factor, and he likely would have developed the condition independently of his work. Conversely, the applicant's treating physician, Dr Brookes, argued that the demands of the applicant's work were the primary cause of his premature bilateral hip arthritis. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had withdrawn his application concerning the right hip during the proceedings.

Given the withdrawal of the application relating to the right hip, the Tribunal found that the correct and preferable decision was to set aside the reviewable decision and remit the matter to Comcare for further consideration. This outcome acknowledged the complexities of the evidence and the procedural development of the case, allowing for a fresh assessment by Comcare.