Amidiong-Otyaluk and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation)

This matter concerned a claim for compensation by the Applicant, an employee of the Australian Capital Territory, for psychological injuries allegedly sustained during her employment. The dispute arose from a decision made by the respondent without hearing oral evidence or submissions from the Applicant. The case was heard by Linda Kirk SM.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the Applicant suffered an "ailment" or an "aggravation" of an ailment as defined by the relevant legislation, and whether her employment contributed to such ailment to a significant degree, qualifying it as a "disease" under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act). Further questions addressed whether any such disease was excluded from the definition of "injury" due to reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, and if not, whether the injury resulted in incapacity for work or impairment. Finally, the court considered the date the disease was sustained and whether a rehabilitation program should have been provided.

The Senior Member found that the Applicant did not suffer an "injury" as defined by the SRC Act. Consequently, there was no obligation on the Respondent to provide a rehabilitation program under section 37(1) of the SRC Act. The Applicant's own statement detailed a challenging work relationship, alleging sexual harassment, unlawful discrimination, and bullying based on her race, background, and age, which she claimed were used to justify "under-performance" as a guise for reasonable administrative action. However, the Senior Member's determination that no injury was sustained meant these allegations did not lead to a finding of entitlement to compensation.

The Reviewable Decision was affirmed.