The seminal case of Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May [2016] HCA 19 clarifies the meaning of ‘injury’ under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC Act).
The facts
Mr May was an employee of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). During the course of his employment, he was required to receive a number of vaccinations. These vaccinations caused Mr May to feel dizzy and fatigued, and to suffer bouts of vertigo. These ailments severely incapacitated Mr May and prevented him from carrying out his duties as an RAAF employee.
The statute
The SRC Act is the workers’ compensation legislation governing Commonwealth employees and those of some major corporations, such as the Commonwealth Bank and the National Australia Bank.
The SRC Act provides that Comcare is liable to pay compensation to an employee ‘in respect of an injury suffered by an employee [where] the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment’.
There are three limbs to the definition of ‘injury’.
- The first limb concerns diseases.
- The second limb concerns a physical or mental injury other than a disease that arises out of, or in the course of, an employee’s employment.
- The third limb concerns the aggravation of an existing physical or mental injury that arose out of, or in the course of, an employee’s employment.
Mr May argued that his ailments fell under the second limb.
The meaning of the second limb
French CJ, Kiefel, Nettle and Gordon JJ stated that, for the purposes of the second limb, an ‘injury’ will be a ‘sudden and ascertainable or dramatic physiological change or disturbance of the normal physiological state’.
Their Honours noted that, if such an ‘injury’ arose out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment, Comcare would be liable to pay compensation.
Gageler J agreed with this definition of ‘injury’ and stated that an employee who wishes to obtain compensation needs to use objective medical evidence such as a diagnosis to identify precisely a ‘definite or distinct physiological change or disturbance’.
Did Mr May have an ‘injury’?
The High Court held that there was a lack of objective medical evidence supporting Mr May’s subjective assertion that he felt dizzy, fatigued and suffered bouts of vertigo. Accordingly, High Court held that there was no diagnosis.
Furthermore, the court held that there was a lack of evidence suggesting that the dizziness, fatigue and bouts of vertigo came about in circumstances linked to Mr May’s employment.
Accordingly, the High Court held that Mr May did not have an ‘injury’ for the purposes of the SRC Act.
How can JFM Law help?
Contact JFM Law on (02) 9199 8597 for a no obligation chat. If you would rather get in contact through email, send your question through or by email at wehelp@jfmlaw.com.au
The information contained in this post is current at the date of editing – 28 November 2023.
