Briouzguine and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review of decisions made by Comcare concerning Mr Briouzguine's entitlement to compensation. The primary dispute revolved around whether Mr Briouzguine had suffered a "permanent impairment" as defined by section 24 of the relevant Act, and if so, the degree of that impairment and the compensation payable. The court was required to determine if Mr Briouzguine had suffered an injury, specifically a myocardial infarction, and whether this, or an aggravation of his chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and associated major depressive disorder, constituted an "ailment" or "aggravation of such an ailment" that arose out of, or in the course of, his employment and contributed to a significant degree. A secondary issue concerned whether any identified impairment was "permanent" and if Mr Briouzguine had undertaken all reasonable rehabilitative treatment.

The court's reasoning focused on the evidence presented by medical professionals regarding Mr Briouzguine's conditions. While accepting that Mr Briouzguine had suffered a myocardial infarction on 3 October 2014, and an aggravation of his post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder on 16 October 2014, the court was not satisfied that the impairment resulting from these conditions was "permanent" within the meaning of section 24 of the Act. Expert medical opinions varied, with some suggesting permanent incapacity while others indicated improvement and potential for future work, particularly in light of a new relationship and marriage. The court ultimately found that, at the time of the decision, the threshold for permanent impairment had not been met.

Consequently, the court set aside Comcare's decision of 11 September 2017 and substituted a decision that Comcare was liable to pay compensation in respect of the myocardial infarction and the aggravation of his psychiatric conditions. However, the court affirmed Comcare's decision of 15 August 2018, which had determined that Mr Briouzguine was not entitled to compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss. The parties were given 14 days to apply for directions regarding costs, failing which Comcare was ordered to pay Mr Briouzguine's costs.