Bromham and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Bromham to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of a decision by Comcare. The dispute centred on Ms Bromham's entitlement to compensation for medical expenses and incapacity payments related to a psychological injury sustained in 2005. Comcare had determined that Ms Bromham was no longer entitled to such compensation from 9 December 2014 onwards, on the basis that her psychological condition had resolved.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Bromham continued to be entitled to compensation for medical expenses incurred and for periods of incapacity for work, on or since 9 December 2015, in relation to her compensable injury. The core legal issue was whether the effects of the compensable injury persisted to the extent that Ms Bromham required ongoing medical treatment and remained incapacitated for work.

The Tribunal found that Comcare had incorrectly placed the onus on Ms Bromham to re-establish her entitlement. Instead, the Tribunal held that an evidentiary burden rested on Comcare to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Bromham no longer suffered from the effects of the compensable injury. The Tribunal considered conflicting medical evidence, including reports from Dr Vickery, who opined that Ms Bromham's psychological condition had resolved and was not related to her employment, and evidence from Ms Bromham herself detailing ongoing distress and an inability to cope. The Tribunal concluded that Comcare had not discharged its evidentiary burden.

The Tribunal set aside the reviewable decision and determined that compensation for medical expenses and incapacity payments has been payable to Ms Bromham continuously since 9 December 2014.