Van de Waterbeemd and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, brought by the Applicant, Ms. Van de Waterbeemd, against Comcare. The central dispute revolved around the appropriate diagnosis of the Applicant's medical condition, whether it constituted a "disease" contributed to by her employment, and whether a gym membership constituted "medical treatment" under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act). The Applicant contended she suffered from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 1 (CRPS1), which had developed from an initial diagnosis of synovitis and tenosynovitis. Comcare, relying on the opinion of Professor Youssef, argued that the Applicant suffered from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) which was a constitutional disorder not materially contributed to by her employment.

The Tribunal was required to determine the correct diagnosis of the Applicant's condition, considering the conflicting medical evidence presented. Specifically, it needed to ascertain whether the Applicant's symptoms, which commenced in late 2003, were indicative of CRPS1 as argued by the Applicant, or CTS as maintained by Comcare. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to assess whether the Applicant's employment had materially contributed to her condition, and whether a gym membership could be considered "medical treatment" under section 4 of the SRC Act.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not support a diagnosis of CRPS1. Instead, it concluded, based on the comprehensive review of the Applicant's medical history and the expert opinion of Professor Youssef, that the Applicant had suffered, and continued to suffer, from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome since 2003. The Tribunal noted that symptoms such as hand weakness, difficulty writing, and dropping objects were consistent with CTS, and that nerve conduction studies conducted in 2006 confirmed bilateral CTS of moderate severity. Regarding the contribution of employment, the Tribunal accepted Professor Youssef's opinion that CTS is a constitutional disorder and was not caused by the Applicant's employment, also considering factors such as obesity and psychological elements as contributing to the condition. Finally, the Tribunal determined that a gym membership did not meet the definition of "medical treatment" as defined in section 4 of the SRC Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decisions. The Applicant's claim for a gym membership as medical treatment was denied, and the finding that her condition was not materially contributed to by her employment was upheld.