What's New in Commonwealth Compensation

Liability

Crofts and Comcare [2010] AATA 71 (2 February 2010), Sydney

The Applicant contended that she suffered from epicondylitis in June 2006 as a result of her work duties. There was no dispute that the Applicant suffered from an underlying cervical spine condition, a congenital abnormality at C7, and that she had been involved in two motor vehicle accidents in which she suffered cervical spine injury.

The central issues for the Tribunal were whether the Applicant suffered from epicondylitis in July 2006 or at all and, if so, whether the condition was caused by her work duties. In relation to the first issue, the Tribunal noted that there was an array of medical opinion about the source of the Applicant’s arm pain and it was satisfied on the basis of specialist medical opinion that the Applicant’s cervical spine caused pain and other symptoms. The question of whether the Applicant had the additional condition of epicondylitis received the most detailed attention in the evidence of two consultant rheumatologists, who provided conflicting opinions.

The Tribunal relied upon the evidence of the consultant rheumatologist who found that the Applicant did not suffer from right lateral epicondylitis, given that the specialist’s opinion arose from more thorough testing, a clear evaluation of the physiotherapist’s and osteopath’s reports and a more thorough analysis of the likely effects of the Applicant’s undisputed cervical spine conditions. Furthermore, the specialist’s opinion was supported to varying extents by the opinion and findings of several neurosurgeons..

Based on the medical evidence before it, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not suffer from right lateral epicondylitis and did not suffer from that condition in July 2006. In light of its findings in relation to the Applicant’s condition, the Tribunal did not consider the second issue of employment causation.