Box and Comcare (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision by Comcare to deny liability for the applicant's claim for major depressive disorder. The applicant, an employee of the Department of Human Services, alleged his condition was caused by the department's handling of his promotion application and subsequent complaints made about his conduct. Comcare contended that the claim was excluded from compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 due to either a wilful and false representation by the applicant regarding prior ailments or because the condition arose from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's depressive disorder constituted an "injury" as defined by the Act, specifically considering the exclusions for wilful and false representations and for conditions arising from reasonable administrative action. This involved assessing the applicant's conduct in completing his compensation claim form and the nature of the administrative actions taken by his employer.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had made a false representation on his claim form by stating he had not previously suffered from a similar ailment, this representation was not wilful. The applicant explained that the process of completing the claim form was distressing due to his then-current symptoms, and he had not intended to defraud the Commonwealth. He sought to rectify the error shortly after becoming aware of it. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the applicant's promotion application issues and the subsequent complaints. It concluded that the administrative actions, while potentially contributing to the applicant's condition, were not taken in a reasonable manner, particularly in light of an acknowledged error by the Merit Protection Committee in handling his promotion appeal and the manner in which the complaints were addressed.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to deny liability. It held that the applicant's condition was excluded from the definition of injury under section 5A(1) of the Act because it resulted from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation for the false representation did not establish wilful intent, but the exclusion related to reasonable administrative action was determinative.