It's a grey area for many employers and employees
In a recent decision, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered whether a truck driver remained eligible to receive compensation regarding a hand injury sustained in 2018. The applicant had worked as a truck driver and rubbish collector for 10 years, commencing employment with the respondent in 2016.
During a shift in May 2018, the applicant sustained a left trapezoid fracture after catching his hand in a bin door while removing rubbish. The respondent accepted liability to pay him compensation pursuant to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act ss 16(1) and 19(1).
However, one year later, in May 2019, the respondent determined it was no longer liable to pay the applicant compensation for medical expenses and incapacity payments. The applicant sought review of the respondent’s determination, alleging that his injury “continues to cause… pain, swelling and reduced dexterity of [the] left hand, two and a half years after sustaining it”. The applicant further alleged that his condition continued to result in an incapacity for work and a requirement for ongoing hand therapy.
The Tribunal heard uncontradicted medical evidence from an orthopaedic surgeon, who had treated the applicant on several occasions following his injury. The surgeon stated that, by February 2019, the applicant’s hand appeared “a lot better”. Further, by November 2019, the surgeon claimed that, although the applicant had developed some arthritis, he was “probably fit to perform normal work duties”.
The surgeon further stated that it “would not have been of any further assistance” for the applicant to work with a therapist on a regular basis “as opposed to… using the hand normally to achieve that last little bit of recovery”.
Following the surgeon’s evidence, the Tribunal affirmed the respondent’s determination, finding that the applicant was not entitled to further compensation for medical expenses obtained in relation to his injury. “As stated by Dr Steadman, the [a]pplicant does not require any medical treatment for the accepted injury and therefore no reasonable medical expenses are required,” the Tribunal concluded.
