Williamson and Comcare (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Williamson and Comcare (Compensation). The applicant, who commenced employment with the Australian Border Force in 1991, claimed to have suffered from meralgia paresthetica, a condition involving nerve entrapment or compression in the thigh, which he attributed to prolonged sitting at his workstation. He sought compensation for this ailment.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had suffered from meralgia paresthetica or an aggravation of such an ailment, whether his employment contributed to this condition to a significant degree, and if the ailment had since been resolved. The applicant's own evidence suggested a history of hip pain dating back to at least 2007, with a specific increase in discomfort during a long driving trip in 2013. Medical investigations, including X-rays, ultrasounds, and MRIs, yielded various findings such as femoracetabular impingement and mild trochanteric bursitis, but no definitive diagnosis of meralgia paresthetica. Expert evidence was presented by a physiotherapist, a sports physician, and a neurophysiology specialist, with differing opinions on the diagnosis and its consistency with the applicant's reported symptoms.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a truthful witness and accepted his evidence of continuous pain, which was temporarily ameliorated by exercises and changes to his work environment. However, the Tribunal noted that medical evidence did not support a diagnosis of meralgia paresthetica. Specifically, the neurophysiology specialist was emphatic that the applicant's symptoms were inconsistent with this diagnosis, particularly regarding the location and nature of the pain. The Tribunal also considered that the applicant's pain pattern, including buttock and hamstring pain, was not typical of meralgia paresthetica.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of Comcare's delegate to decline liability for meralgia paresthetica under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), as the evidence did not establish that the applicant had suffered from this specific ailment.