Cantwell-Zeb and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for compensation for a major depressive disorder, with the applicant alleging workplace bullying and harassment. The dispute was heard by Deputy President McDermott.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's employment had contributed to her psychiatric health issues to a "significant degree," and whether the applicant had in fact been bullied or harassed at the workplace. The court was required to determine the weight to be given to the conflicting expert medical opinions regarding the cause of the applicant's condition.

Deputy President McDermott considered the evidence of two medical specialists, Dr Apel and Dr Varghese. While both agreed the applicant suffered from major depression, they differed on the extent to which her employment contributed to it. Dr Apel considered workplace factors to be significant causes, based partly on the applicant's self-report. Dr Varghese, however, considered it more likely that workplace issues were a consequence of her depression, and he did not find the condition to be work-related. Deputy President McDermott preferred Dr Varghese's opinion, noting that Dr Apel acknowledged the difficulty in weighing contributing factors and that Dr Apel's opinion was predicated on the applicant's self-report. Crucially, after reviewing the evidence, Deputy President McDermott could not make a finding that the applicant had been bullied or harassed at the workplace, distinguishing the present case from *Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve* where workplace actions were found to have contributed to the psychiatric disorder.

The decision under review was affirmed.