Cho and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned a claim for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act) by Mr Cho against Comcare. The claim related to an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features, which Comcare had disallowed on the basis that the injury, if any, was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. The Senior Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to review this decision.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Cho suffered a pre-existing psychological condition that was aggravated by the events relied upon, or alternatively, if he did not have a pre-existing condition, whether he suffered an "injury" as defined by the SRC Act. Crucially, if either of these were established, the Tribunal also had to determine whether the condition or aggravation occurred as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

The Tribunal considered that the question of whether Mr Cho suffered a pre-existing psychological condition prior to the events relied upon was ultimately immaterial. This was because the core question was whether, if he did have such a condition, it was aggravated to a significant degree by the events, or if he did not have a pre-existing condition, whether the events significantly contributed to the development of the condition. The Tribunal found that the evidence supported a conclusion that Mr Cho's condition was one outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour prior to the events in question, referencing *Comcare v Mooi* (1996) 69 FCR 439. The Tribunal noted that Mr Cho had a psychological history predating the events, including an incident in early 2012 where he assaulted a male nurse.

Having reached the view that Mr Cho's condition was one outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour prior to the events, the Tribunal determined it was not necessary to consider whether the events fell within the exclusionary provisions of section 5A of the SRC Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found that Mr Cho was not entitled to compensation under section 14(1) of the SRC Act, and therefore affirmed the decision under review.