Cheatham and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning a claim for compensation by the Applicant against Comcare. The Applicant sought review of Comcare's decision to refuse compensation for a claimed psychological ailment, alleging that his employment with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) contributed significantly to the onset or aggravation of this ailment. Comcare had determined that no liability for compensation arose under section 14 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant suffered a psychological ailment or an aggravation of a pre-existing psychological ailment as a result of his employment with the AFP. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the Applicant's employment contributed to a significant degree to the onset or aggravation of any such ailment, and whether the ailment, if any, arose from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. The Applicant contended that he suffered an injury for the purposes of the Act, arguing that his employment aggravated an undiagnosed psychological ailment and that the incident on 8 November 2018 was a tipping point rather than the sole cause, thus rendering the reasonable administrative action provisions inapplicable.

The Tribunal considered extensive evidence, including medical records, employment history, and statements from the Applicant and medical practitioners. While acknowledging the Applicant had experienced numerous traumatic events throughout his policing career, the Tribunal ultimately found, on the balance of probabilities, that it was not satisfied the Applicant had suffered a psychological ailment or any ailment or injury as a result of his employment with the AFP. The Tribunal accepted the Applicant's subjective account of events but cautioned that this perspective was subjective. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not have an injury for the purposes of section 5A of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. The Applicant's claim for compensation was therefore refused.