Cawthorne and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, Mr Cawthorne, for compensation from Comcare under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act). The Applicant alleged he suffered an adjustment disorder with anxious mood as a result of workplace harassment and bullying. Comcare conceded the Applicant suffered from the condition but contended that his incapacity for work only commenced on 4 September 2014, and that the conversation he had with Ms Moores on that date constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment, thereby excluding the condition from the definition of "injury" under the SRC Act.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant suffered an "injury" as defined by the SRC Act, and if so, whether that injury created a liability for Comcare to pay compensation. Specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine if the Applicant's adjustment disorder with anxious mood arose out of, or in the course of, his employment, and crucially, whether it was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, which would exclude it from compensation. The Tribunal also had to determine the deemed date of injury, considering when the Applicant first sought medical treatment or when the condition first resulted in incapacity for work or impairment.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's interaction with Ms Moores on 4 September 2014 was the precipitating event for his incapacity for work. Applying the principles from *Hart v Comcare* and *Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve*, the Tribunal held that if any cause of an injury falls within the exclusion of reasonable administrative action, the employee is disentitled to compensation. The Tribunal concluded that the telephone conversation with Ms Moores was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the Applicant's employment. Consequently, the Applicant's condition was excluded from the definition of "injury" under section 5A of the SRC Act.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Comcare was not liable to pay compensation to the Applicant under section 14 of the SRC Act.