Atkins and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review by Ms. Atkins against a decision by Comcare that ceased liability for incapacity payments after 3 March 2015. The reviewable decision was made on the basis that any incapacity after that date was due to contested conditions, not Ms. Atkins' accepted psychological condition of generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). The contested conditions included an asthmatic attack, cardiorespiratory arrest, hypoxic brain injury, epilepsy, and Lance Adams syndrome, which were alleged to have been provoked or precipitated by a conversation related to her GAD.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine whether Comcare had correctly ceased liability for incapacity payments, and consequently, whether it was liable for the contested medical conditions. This involved assessing the causal link between Ms. Atkins' accepted psychological condition, a workplace incident involving a colleague, and the subsequent medical conditions for which Comcare denied liability. The Tribunal was also required to consider the appropriateness of ongoing psychology sessions and the liability for household aids and medication.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the medical evidence and its own expertise in physiological and medical matters. It acknowledged the complexity and conflicting nature of the medical reports, many of which were obtained years after the events. The Tribunal accepted that Ms. Atkins suffered from asthma, but found that prior to February 2015, her asthma attacks were infrequent and not experienced during the period of workplace anxiety. The Tribunal also noted that Ms. Atkins' memory was affected by retrograde amnesia for a specific period.

Ultimately, the Tribunal remitted the decision relating to permanent impairment due to the psychiatric condition to Comcare for reconsideration, accepting a 50:50 percentage attribution to the psychiatric Work-Related Permanent Impairment (WPI) rating. The Tribunal also found that the decision regarding the provision of psychology sessions was no longer appropriate given the continuing liability for the work-related psychiatric condition, and that any determination should be at the discretion of a treating professional. The liability for household aids and medication was made dependent on the Tribunal's decision regarding the contested medical conditions.