Administrative ruling failed to explain why it preferred Comcare's expert opinions, court says
Australia’s Federal Court has set aside the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) decision on an application seeking medical expenses and incapacity payments based on a lumbar sprain the applicant suffered while employed by the Bureau of Meteorology.
Comcare – Australia’s workers’ compensation authority and the respondent in Romano v Comcare, [2025] FCA 446 – rejected the applicant’s claim for present liability for medical expenses under s. 16 and incapacity payments under s. 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) on 23 February 2022. Comcare later affirmed its determination.
Before a senior member of the ART, the issue was whether the applicant continued to feel the impacts of the 21 December 2005 injury by 23 February 2022. The applicant’s evidence included reports from two medical practitioners.
The applicant's general practitioner said the applicant’s injury caused spinal disc protrusions, which led to his current condition. The occupational physician brought by the applicant found that the applicant’s presentation solely related to the injury.
Comcare also provided evidence consisting of reports from two medical practitioners: an orthopaedic surgeon and an occupational physician.
Comcare’s orthopaedic surgeon said the applicant’s employment with the Bureau of Meteorology on the day of the injury did not significantly contribute to his non-specific musculoligamentous back pain or a worsening of that condition and did not continue to contribute to his ongoing back pain since 2005.
Comcare’s occupational physician found that the applicant had an underlying degenerative lumbosacral spinal condition, which would be symptomatic regardless of his occupational duties and social activities.
On 5 November 2024, the ART affirmed Comcare’s decision. The senior member determined that the applicant did not continue to experience the injury’s effects by 23 February 2022. The applicant appealed under s. 172 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act).
In the present proceeding, the parties jointly asked the court to issue proposed orders allowing the applicant’s appeal and ordering Comcare to pay the applicant’s appeal costs.
The parties agreed that ART’s senior member committed an error by failing to provide adequate reasons explaining the decision to prefer the reports of Comcare’s medical experts over those of the applicant’s medical experts, as required by s. 111(2) of the ART Act.
The Federal Court of Australia allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the application to a differently constituted tribunal, which would issue a decision according to law. The court deemed it appropriate to grant the relief the parties requested.
The court ruled that s. 111(2) of the ART Act clearly required the ART to explain the reasons for its decision. Specifically, the ART had an obligation to give a written statement for its decision, including its findings on material factual questions and references to the evidence and material supporting those findings.
The court held that the ART made the legal error alleged by the applicant when it failed to explain the reasoning process that made it prefer the expert opinions presented by Comcare’s side over those provided by the applicant’s side.
The court noted that the medical experts’ opinions addressed a material issue the ART had to determine: whether the applicant still suffered from the injury’s effects by 23 February 2022.
