Bell and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against a reviewable decision that affirmed a determination to deny compensation under sections 24 and 27 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act). The compensation sought was for permanent impairment and non-economic loss arising from the Applicant's accepted conditions of major depression disorder, single episode, and agoraphobia with panic attacks, with a deemed date of injury of 18 December 2008. The Applicant had commenced employment with the Department of Human Services in 2007 and lodged her claim for compensation in April 2009, alleging her injury was caused by sexual harassment.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant continued to suffer from the accepted injury for the purposes of the SRC Act, and if so, whether that injury resulted in a permanent impairment and non-economic loss. The Tribunal was required to determine if the Applicant's condition still met the definition of an injury under the SRC Act, as this was a prerequisite for assessing permanent impairment and non-economic loss under sections 24 and 27.

The Tribunal reasoned that for an assessment of permanent impairment and non-economic loss to be made under sections 24 and 27 of the SRC Act, it must first be satisfied that the Applicant continues to suffer from an injury as defined by the Act. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent's contention that the Applicant's condition was a disease and that she was required to continue to meet the requirements of section 5B of the SRC Act. The Tribunal applied the principle from *Prain v Comcare* [2017] FCAFC 143, which held that for an applicant to continue to suffer an injury for the purposes of sections 24 and 27, the causative threshold must continue to be met.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was no longer suffering from an injury for the purposes of the SRC Act as at the date of the hearing. Therefore, the Applicant had no present entitlement to compensation for permanent impairment or non-economic loss under sections 24 and 27 of the SRC Act in relation to her accepted injury. Accordingly, the reviewable decision was affirmed, albeit for different reasons than those initially presented.