Uphill and Comcare - [2000] AATA 304

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 304

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No. N1998/891

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re Wendy Lee UPHILL
Applicant

And COMCARE
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mrs M T Lewis, Senior Member

Date19 April 2000
PlaceSydney

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..............................................
M T Lewis
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
WORKERS COMPENSATION – whether neck and back pain due to increase in work load and change of duties - whether new aggravation or injury sustained or a continuation of the condition the subject of previous Tribunal proceedings - whether employment contributed to the causation, acceleration or aggravation of condition

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 - s 4

Commonwealth of Australia v Beattie (1981) 35 ALR 369
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626

REASONS FOR DECISION

19 April 2000 Mrs M T Lewis, Senior Member

This is a review of a reconsideration determination of a review officer of Comcare ("the Respondent") dated 19 June 1998, which affirmed an earlier determination dated 16 April 1998, to refuse the Applicant's claim for compensation.
The Tribunal had before it documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The following documentary evidence was tendered on behalf of the Applicant:

Reports of Dr A C Schwarzer, consultant rheumatologist, dated 27 November 1997, 2 March 1998, 10 August 1998 and 16 March 1999 (exhibit A);
Report of Dr M R Joseph, general practitioner, dated 29 March 1999 (exhibit B); and
Report of Dr M McGinty, Senior Medical Adviser, dated 30 October 1998, with covering letter from Centrelink dated 9 December 1998 (exhibit C).

The following evidence was tendered on behalf of the Respondent:

Report of Dr J Chen, consultant physician in occupational medicine, dated 18 March 1999 (exhibit 1);
Diagram of Pain Distribution (exhibit 2);
Clinical notes of Dr Joseph, dated 2 December 1997 to 8 May 1998 (exhibit 3);
Documents produced in response to summons by Charlestown Remedial Sports Injuries Clinic (exhibit 4); and
Sick leave records from period commencing 22 February 1991 to 26 February 1999 in respect of the Applicant (exhibit 5).

The Applicant gave oral evidence at the hearing.
background

The Applicant was employed as an Administrative Service Officer Class 4 (Customer Service Officer) ("ASO4") with Centrelink at Charlestown. On 10 March 1998 she signed a Claim for Compensation (T5) in respect of neck and back strain, muscle spasms and soreness which also affects her shoulders, arms, elbows, legs and buttocks.
In respect of a previous compensation claim for neck and back pain, the Tribunal decided on 12 December 1997, by consent of the parties, that all work-related injuries and aggravations, including aggravation of musculoligamentous strain of the lower thoracic and lumbar regions, diffuse pain involving the low back, legs, neck, thoracic spine and shoulders, stress and secondary depression and anxiety neurosis arising out of the foregoing, ceased on and from 3 December 1997 (T3).
On 16 April 1998 a Comcare delegate disallowed the Applicant's claim of 10 March 1998, on the basis that her condition claimed was the subject of the decision of the Tribunal on 12 December 1997 (T9). On 18 May 1998 the Applicant's solicitors requested a reconsideration of the decision on the basis that the Applicant sustained a fresh injury which gave rise to a fresh entitlement of compensation.
Prior to the hearing of this application before the Tribunal the Respondent raised the question as to whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction. On 18 June 1999 the Tribunal issued a Direction that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine this application on the basis that the substantive issue before the Tribunal now is whether the Applicant suffered a new injury or aggravation of a pre-existing condition in the course of her employment on 3 March 1998, leading to the requirement to have medical treatment and some days off work. This issue is only in respect of a closed period from 3 March 1998 to 26 February 1999 at which time the Applicant took a voluntary redundancy. There is no claim for ongoing incapacity.
the relevant legislation
The following relevant definitions appear in s 4(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988:
4(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
"aggravation" includes acceleration or recurrence;
"injury" means:
(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b) an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, being a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment; or
(c) an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not the injury arose out of, or in the course of the employee's employment), being an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
…

applicant's evidence

The Applicant was born on 9 October 1970, and was aged 28 years at the time of the hearing. The Applicant lives by herself, and does her own shopping and housework, which she described as "minimal work"
The Applicant left school at age 16 years, upon completion of the School Certificate. Subsequently she undertook a clerical traineeship for 12 months, during which time she attended TAFE 2 days per week, and worked in a clerical position for B & R Brakes in Blacktown, three days per week. She commenced work for the Department of Social Security, now known as Centrelink, on 1 February 1988 in a clerical position (exhibits 1 and C).
In December 1997 the Applicant claimed compensation in respect of an injury to her back and occasional pain in her neck. Those proceedings were resolved in December 1997 and the Applicant returned to work.
In January 1998 the Applicant was working in the receptionist position at the Family Service Centre. She was then promoted from that ASO3 position to an ASO4 "desk position" position early in 1998. This involved: "serving customers, taking appointments, processing all our work from the computer, answering the phone if necessary". Her work at the computer involved keyboard work.
When the Applicant moved to the desk job she said that her back "started aggravating again" and she started to get shoulder and neck pain. When that happened she spoke to supervisors and had time off work and had massages and "tried to fix it" herself. She said she went back to the doctor. She could not recall whether she went to see Dr Joseph, but remembered seeing Dr Schwarzer, a specialist rheumatologist, on 2 March 1998. She said she told Dr Schwarzer of her work and her problems at that time. It was on 3 March 1998 that the Applicant reported a worsening of her symptoms. The Applicant could not recall whether she discussed further treatment with Dr Schwarzer.
In the course of the Applicant's work at the desk job she interviewed customers. The duration of these interviews was between 5 minutes to an hour and three quarters, depending on the problem. During the interviews she was seated. In 1998 she said she could only sit at her desk for a maximum of about 20 minutes without experiencing some difficulty. But she said "some days were better than others – all depend on if I'd just had my back manipulated and put back into place or if it was aching, it was cold, depend on the weather as well, raining". The longest time she could sit in one spot without feeling difficulty was "probably about half an hour". When this happened she would move about a bit "but I'd sort of have to stay there because I had no sort of choice in the matter. I couldn't exactly say 'I'm sorry I've got to get up and walk around, do you mind just waiting for me' ".
The Applicant described the situation at the front desk as different, because –
I could sit, I could stand, I could jump around, I could do whatever I want to at that stage … I could sit down and I wasn't on the computer constantly. I could stand up to speak to customers because it was a higher desk. It was a reception point so it was a different set up completely.

When she was performing the desk job it was part of her work to enter all the information that the customers had given her, and also to process all the claims that came through during the day. Whilst interviewing a customer she was required from time to time to enter data into the customer's computer file. She said she would sometimes see up to 200 customers a day when on reception, but at that time she was not sitting constantly. When she was at the desk job she interviewed between 10 to 15 people a day.

The Applicant could not recall how much time she had had off work in 1998; she agreed she had had a "few days" off but for reasons other than her claimed condition.
The Applicant last saw Dr Schwarzer on 10 August 1998. At that time she was still working on the desk job. She said she told him about the physical problems that she was experiencing at that time.
The Applicant said that she has "a lot of massage", which she pays for. She also had acupuncture in 1998, and physiotherapy. In 1998 she was prescribed Ducene and Panadeine Forte by Dr Joseph, and Amitriptyline by Dr Schwarzer. She commented that anti-inflammatory medication made her ill. This provided the impetus for her to try alternate therapies, such as meditation and the use of relaxation tapes. She explained she "couldn't work on the meditation because I was too dopey".
The Applicant said that she had not taken any medication prior to coming to the hearing. In cross-examination she said she was experiencing pains "down my left leg, in my left glute muscle" and down the lower half of her spine.
When she experienced the pain in 1998, she said the pain would go down both her legs, but sometimes this would vary. She described this pain as –
… a sharp pain down the back of the leg or it'll – you'll just feel like a dull ache or sometimes I could – if I've been asleep and I've had a bad night – they'd be numb – like you have a numb feeling through them.
The Applicant also described pain in her neck that is located at the base of her skull, and works it way down through her shoulders. The pain in her shoulders extended around to her wrist and through to both elbows. The Applicant indicated back pain that began in the upper lumbar/lower thoracic area and which travels down to her coccyx and sacrum. She said that she felt this pain prior to 1998 when she was at work with the Centrelink, and noted that it was the same pain that was the subject of the proceedings that were settled in 1997. She said that sometimes the pain is worse now than she had experienced previously. She attributed this to long periods of sitting, and also to some movements that irritate her back, depending on whether her back had "been put back in".
Despite complaining of back pain on 2 December 1997, 21 January 1998, 2 February 1998 and 6 March 1998, in cross-examination the Applicant could not say precisely when she was working at her desk job, nor did she tell any doctor about her change of job. Further, she said –
Well, during the period of December/January an influx of customers do come through at that period of time because of Christmas and most people are separating or reconciling with their partners at that stage. It's quite a renowned busy time for us within that Department.
In cross-examination the Applicant said she was not compelled to seek promotion within the organisation, but that "they do push you, yes, to try and better yourself but that position as a reception position was increasing to a higher work load as well". She said that she did "not really" want to leave the reception desk, but she:
… needed a bit of a break myself, not just physically but emotionally. When you've got 200 or so people coming in abusing you a day, it is not the best sort of job to have to go to every single day especially sometimes if your back is aching, you're not feeling 100 per cent within yourself.
The Applicant said when she was working at the desk she was able to work flexible hours. She said she regularly started at 7 am and left sometime between 4 and 5pm. Her average day was around eight and a half to nine hours. She agreed that the standard Public Service day at that time was 7 hours and 21 minutes. She agreed in cross-examination that she voluntarily worked additional hours in order to accumulate flex leave, but said that this was done with "pressure". She said –
You – you're pressured to stay there until 4.30 at least and then to do your work – if your work wasn't done you had to stay and get it done otherwise people wouldn't get paid and that was their livelihood.
In cross-examination the Applicant agreed that during 1998 her supervisor pointed out to her that if she was suffering from pain she should not be working a nine-hour day. However, she said that was only "on paper", and the supervisor was from the Regional Office and not from the Family Service Centre.
The Applicant agreed that in 1998 she frequently presented accident and incident forms about neck and back pain, despite feeling pressured in the workplace. She said that sometimes in 1998 she had been under the care of rehabilitation personnel. She agreed that they had similarly expressed their concerns about her working nine-hour days but they did not offer her any solutions. She said she was not told to take shorter days. She said –
… they made you feel like you had no choice. I was pressured into working otherwise I felt like I was getting discriminated against.

She agreed that she often took Mondays and Fridays off, and said this enabled her to rest.

In October 1998 the Applicant started selling clothes by party plan. She worked on this on her days off and described it as "minimal work". She also agreed that she went dancing on most weekends during 1998, "as a form of exercise". She said –
I can still move and – yes, I can still go out and walk and do anything but I suffer the consequences during the day so I wouldn't really go out during the day. Most times I would stay at home and lay down on the lounge so I could go out of a night, so eventually my days were my nights if that makes [sense]…
That Applicant said that in 1990 she "probably" made a complaint to Dr Joseph about a sore neck. In November 1991 she was involved in a car accident. She subsequently went for a medical examination on 25 November 1991 in respect of her neck, and was found to be tender around her lumbar region. In 1994 her doctor noted that she required a special chair with lumbar support. The Applicant did not recall this request, but remembered having a chair that was "better than most".
The Applicant was questioned about her visit to Charlestown Remedial Sports Injuries Clinic on 22 August 1995. On this initial visit she had filled in a form (exhibit 4) indicating pain in her lower back and neck, and that the injury was "recurrent". She also recorded a past history of wrist, back, lower leg, and ankle injuries, and muscle strains.
During the course of her employment the Applicant had counselling about efficiency around the time of her first claim in 1996. She said "I had a lot of problems with my supervisors at that time" but denied this had anything to do with her claim. At around the time of her claim in 1996 Dr Joseph referred her to a physiotherapist, who then described her as an "old patient". When questioned about this the Applicant said she had "more than likely" visited the physiotherapist previously, but she could not remember.
During both 1996 and 1998 the Applicant travelled to Sydney to visit relatives. She said the journey from Newcastle to Sydney took about one hour and 15 minutes, and it was usual for her to stay overnight. She used a hot water bottle on the journey and lambswool seat covers to ease her pain.
In February 1999 the Applicant took voluntary redundancy. She has since had part-time tele-marketing work with a Hunter Valley wine society. Currently she works a maximum of four hours per day and does not wish to increase her hours. She said that this telephone work enables her to sit or stand at will. She said that since she stopped work at Centrelink her back has not been "too bad". She said that whilst her back "aches all the time", the pain has not been as severe, and her shoulders and neck have not been as bad.
medical evidence
Dr Joseph has been the Applicant's general practitioner since 1989. In his report dated 29 March 1999 (exhibit B) he noted that on 25 March 1996 the Applicant "presented with a history of sore neck and back. She stated that it had been playing up for approximately 2 months previously". Dr Joseph noted that throughout 1998 and 1999 the Applicant complained of back and neck ache.
Dr Schwarzer initially saw the Applicant on 7 February 1997, and then subsequently on 16 May 1997, 12 September 1997, 2 March 1998 and 10 August 1998. In his report dated 27 November 1997, Dr Schwarzer outlined a history given to him by the Applicant, viz. that she first experienced back pain in 1991, the cause of which was not clear. She "requested a chair with lumbar support and this was provided for her and improved her pain". In "February or March 1996 she experienced the onset of pain in her wrists, elbows and shoulders". At that time she was working at the counter. At the time of her initial consultation she informed him that she had changed jobs and "was performing reception work which involved both sitting and standing". Dr Schwarzer summarised the information –
Wendy presented with diffuse low lumbar pain radiating down both legs but also radiating into the thoracic area, neck and shoulders. The pain was considered to be related to her employment as a clerk with the Department of Social Security. She had mild problems for the previous six years although she had been getting significantly worse over the previous 12 months. At the time of the initial consultation it was my opinion that her pain was related to her posture at work and possibly her work station. There was no identifiable precipitating event. The features in her upper limbs suggested an overuse syndrome. There was no evidence of an inflammatory process.
Dr Schwarzer notes that "a variety of investigations failed to reveal any obvious structural abnormality". In his report dated 27 November 1997, he opined –
In summary Ms Uphill has a chronic pain syndrome in all probability related to her work. The precise cause of her pain is conjectural. However, it would appear that she has become very disabled since March 1996. One could contemplate that she developed low back pain and discomfort at her work station, and subsequently developed secondary pain in her thoracic spine and upper limbs. She reports very diffuse pain which defies a clear anatomical diagnosis. However, frequently we see such patients with diffuse pain and I do not believe that such patients are malingering but in fact complain of genuine pain. The fact that we cannot explain the pain on anatomical and physiological terms at present does not deny the fact that this patient has pain.
There was no obvious other precipitating event which could reasonably explain the onset of her diffuse pain and therefore one must have to relate her pain in some way to the ergonomic environment at work. Her problem has caused her significant distress and this is heightened by the fact that several medical practitioners who have examined her did not believe there was an organic basis to her problem.
In his report dated 16 March 1999, Dr Schwarzer said –
When I saw Ms Uphill in the rooms on 2/3/98, she continued to complain of diffuse pain in her neck, shoulders, arms, low back and lower limbs. Her pain had not changed in character since I had seen her previously but she said that it was getting worse. She continued to work at a computer keyboard all day. She stated that being off work for seven months had helped, but her pain had come back quite severely since resuming work. Examination revealed diffuse tenderness in her neck, thoracic and lumbar areas. She demonstrated a reduced range of neck and back movements. There was pain and tenderness in her arms. Neurological examination was entirely normal.

Dr McGinty, Senior Medical Adviser, Health Services Australia, examined the Applicant on 30 October 1998, in order to assess her fitness for work (exhibit C). She notes that the Applicant performed receptionist duties between January 1997 and January 1998. In January 1998 her job changed to ASO4. She concluded –
In my opinion it appears that Ms Uphill is a dissatisfied employee of Centre Link (sic). She has a multitude of complaints with no demonstrable pathology. Her complaints I believe relate to a postural discomfort and do not indicate any physical or psychological damage.
Dr Chen, occupational physician, examined the Applicant on 18 March 1999 (exhibit 1), at the request of the Respondent. In contrast to Dr McGinty, Dr Chen noted that the Applicant performed reception duties from February 1997 to February 1998, and from February 1998 the she performed counter duties as an ASO4. She noted that the Applicant had planned to accept a voluntary redundancy around late 1998. In order to utilise her sick leave she went on sick leave from 1 February 1999 until her redundancy became effective on 26 February 1999. This sick leave was not attributed to back and shoulder pain, but rather a "viral illness".
In relation to the Applicant's medical condition Dr Chen opined –
The clinical findings are consistent with constitutional fibromyalgia syndrome, characterised by general muscular aches and pains, and discreet symmetrical tender points in specified locations as identified. This is essentially a constitutional condition also known as fibrositis.

applicant's submissions

It was submitted that she had an injury in the course of her employment in 1996, which was reactivated in March 1998. It was submitted that her medical condition is long-standing. According to Dr Schwarzer that condition is chronic pain syndrome, according to Dr Chen it is fibromyalgia. On either view of the condition it is not one that has arisen since December of 1997. In December 1997 there was an agreement between the parties, reduced to terms of settlement and filed with the Tribunal, of an injury at work. That injury is related to the neck and back pain about which she had complained, leading to certain consequences which were resolved by those terms of settlement. It was submitted that the issue is not whether the injury ever occurred, but whether it has been reactivated by something that occurred in the course of the Applicant's employment in 1998.
It was submitted that the Applicants condition is chronic because of the length of time that she has been experiencing pain. This is not the sort of pain that totally disables her from work, but rather for brief periods of time where she might need to take a day off, as she has done in 1998, and also for treatment when the episodes have become severe.
It was submitted that when the Applicant performed certain work her condition was aggravated or exacerbated by certain postural factors in her work, causing her pain. The postural factors that exacerbate her condition include: working at a desk, performing duties as an ASO4 and, in particular, dealing with customers where she has to enter and retrieve information from a computer involving long periods of sitting from time to time, and in the circumstances which occurred in March 1998 she suffered pain, consulted her local doctor and took some time off work.
On the question of whether the medical condition, previously accepted as an injury by the parties, has been aggravated or accelerated, it was submitted that the case of the Commonwealth of Australia v Beattie (1981) 35 ALR 369 summarised the relevant authorities. In that case the issue was whether incapacitating pain brought on by activity undertaken in the course of employment could constitute aggravation of a physical injury, nothwithstanding that such pain was not brought about by any further pathological change. In fact, in that case the original injury was suffered at home and the worker who worked as a counter clerk at the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Construction suffered pain when she was at work. The original injury was non-compensable, but the Court said –
Pain brought on by work activity may constitute an aggravation of a pre-existing injury even though no pathological change takes place. Whether it does or not will usually be a question of fact to be decide by the Tribunal or prescribed court …

The Court referred to the case of Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626. In that case the worker suffered a psychological disorder, being a mental illness which predisposed her to delusions. The question in that case was whether that mental disorder had been aggravated or accelerated by a work injury; and Windeyer J stated, at 637 –

The question whether there has been an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a mental disorder is, I think, actually one of fact. It is a question on which the opinion of psychiatrists may obviously be helpful, but the answer depends upon whether, for the sufferer, the consequences of his affliction have become more serious.

On this basis it was submitted that the Applicant's condition has become more serious due to postural factors at her work, leading to pain and incapacity. The question is the same whether one deals with that as an exacerbation or an aggravation, but perhaps if there is a difference, exacerbation is more accurate in this case as it deals with the consequence of the condition felt by the Applicant which can, itself, lead to incapacity for some brief period.
The Applicant sought a finding from the Tribunal that her condition was work-related and that the matter be remitted to the Respondent for the amount of compensation payable to her.
respondent's submissions
It was submitted that this case lacks the relevant documentation about incapacity for work. The dates for which the Applicant claimed compensation, including 22 May 1998, 28 August 1998 and 11 November 1998, the Applicant did not see her doctor. Other dates claimed, viz 5 July and 15 to 17 July 1998 inclusive, are supported by statements from Dr Joseph. It was submitted that it is remarkable that when the Applicant saw Dr Schwarzer on 10 August he did not include anything in his report to the effect that the Applicant was unfit for work on the day he examined her. It was submitted, additionally, that three of the days claimed are for reasons unrelated to her compensation claim, those being 8 September 1998, 8 October 1998 and 20 November 1998.
The Applicant alleged that she suffered a re-aggravation of her injury sometime in early 1998, due to a change in work duties, when she was promoted to the ASO4 position, which placed her at her desk more or less permanently. However, in her history to Dr McGinty (exhibit C), the Applicant said that she was assigned to rotating duties - a week in reception, nine weeks in customer service, one week in reception, and nine weeks in regional office where there is no direct customer contact. It was submitted that this is inconsistent with her evidence that she felt pressured to seek promotion to the ASO4 position, was taken away from reception, seemingly permanently, and assigned to a desk job where she interviewed clients all the time. The Respondent submits that the Tribunal should not rely on the Applicant's recollection in relation to periods of illness or any other matters before the Tribunal.
It is submitted that "exacerbation" is not mentioned in the legislation. The Applicant has to claim either that she has been injured by way of some discrete injury that occurred during the course of her employment or that she has sustained an aggravation. Aggravation is defined in the Act as including "acceleration or recurrence". It is submitted that no discrete event such as this occurred in March 1998.
It was submitted on the evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that there existed some recognisable exacerbation of pain on 3 March 1998 that could be characterised as aggravation. The Applicant had been regularly visiting Dr Joseph, her treating practitioner, whom she consulted when the pain got severe. At consultations on 2 December 1997 and again in January, February and March 1998 the Applicant made consistent complaints of back and neck pain. The Applicant has no recollection of 3 March 1998, the day she claims to have aggravated her injury, which was the day after her six monthly review by her then treating rheumatologist. Neither at that consultation, nor when she saw Dr Joseph on 6 March, did she say anything that supports her claim now before the Tribunal, that she experienced a noticeable worsening of symptoms on 3 March 1998. The Applicant's case is not that she changed duties on 3 March, but that she experienced a noticeable worsening of her symptoms.
It was submitted for the Respondent that the Applicant changed her story from one of ergonomic factors to one that December/January is a busy period which resulted in her consulting her doctor around that time.
Evidence given by Dr Chen is that the Applicant does not suffer any illness related to her workplace. Instead, Dr Chen characterises the Applicant's condition as a constitutional fibromyalgia. On the basis of this, it was submitted the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Applicant suffered any work-related aggravation on 3 March 1998, or on any other date.
The claim is also in respect of medical treatment, and it was submitted that the only medical treatment that could be associated with any of those dates, was the obtaining of medical certificates from Dr Joseph once in March 1998 and again in July 1998. The Respondent also disputed the allegation that there exists medical treatment for which the Applicant ought to be compensated.
In reference to the question of jurisdiction that predated the substantive hearing in this matter, it was submitted that the Applicant has not produced evidence of injury or aggravation in respect of the relevant period and therefore she has not complied with that particular requirement foreshadowed by the Tribunal.
consideration of evidence and finding of fact
It appears to be common ground between the parties, and the Tribunal so finds on the evidence, that the Applicant moved to a new job in Centrelink about February 1998 (T7).
The Tribunal, in its Direction dated 18 June 1999, determined that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine this application on the basis that the substantive issue is whether the Applicant suffered a new injury, or aggravation of a pre-existing condition, in the course of her employment on 3 March 1998 and/or thereafter until her employment was terminated on 26 February 1999. In effect, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of any alleged continuation of the effects of a previous injury that was the subject of a previous claim.
The Tribunal finds on the evidence now before it that the Applicant has not established that on or after 3 March 1998 she suffered either a new injury or an aggravation of a previous injury. She cannot clearly remember the aggravation occurring. The link between her changing jobs and any aggravation is tenuous. Furthermore, there is no contemporaneous evidence of this link - she never mentioned it to any of the doctors she saw including her general practitioner, despite seeing both her specialist rheumatologist and her general practitioner around the time the aggravation allegedly occurred. At one point in her evidence she attributed an increase in her back and neck pain to being busier than usual during the Christmas period. She made no reference to the change in the nature of her duties being the cause of her difficulties until 11 March 1998 (T7) when she advised her supervisor that she sustained an injury in the form of muscle strain/spasm and numbness which she occurred on 3 March 1998. However, the Applicant continued to work long hours because she felt "pressured", despite having been warned against this. On the other hand, however, she did not appear to have any problems taking flex leave on Mondays or Fridays. The Tribunal does not accept this evidence. The inconsistency and vagueness of the Applicant's evidence caused the Tribunal to be unable to rely on it. The evidence before the Tribunal shows a long history over many years of pain in the Applicant's back and neck (exhibits A and 4).
The Applicant relied on the decision of the Federal Court in Beattie (supra). Applying that decision, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant did not suffer from incapacitating pain during the period under review, or if she did it was on a very infrequent basis taking into account the medical evidence. However, the central issue in the decision in Beattie is whether the Applicant's neck and back pain during the relevant period arose from the tasks she performed at work, which is a matter to be determined by the Tribunal in each case. The Tribunal is not reasonably satisfied that any of the Applicant's pain was related to her work tasks.
On the evidence the Tribunal cannot be reasonably satisfied that an injury or an aggravation occurred on or after 3 March 1998. For these reasons the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the 57 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs M T Lewis, Senior Member
Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate
Date/s of Hearing  16 August 1999
Date of Decision  19 April 2000
Counsel for the Applicant        Mr McKenzie
Solicitor for the Applicant         Bale Boshev & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent    Ms Henderson
Solicitor for the Respondent    Barker Gosling Solicitors