Cleland and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Cleland for compensation from Comcare. The dispute centred on whether Ms Cleland was entitled to compensation under sections 24 and 27 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) for an alleged aggravation of myalgia and myositis, and a major depressive disorder. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) heard the matter in Perth.

The AAT was required to determine whether Ms Cleland continued to suffer from the accepted conditions for which she sought compensation, and whether Comcare was liable to pay compensation under the relevant sections of the Act. The Tribunal also considered whether previous determinations made under section 14 of the Act remained in force.

The Tribunal considered extensive evidence, including statements from Ms Cleland, reports from various medical specialists (a rheumatologist, neurologist, and psychiatrist), and documents from Ms Cleland's treating practitioners. Ms Cleland gave oral evidence regarding the onset and progression of her fibromyalgia, its impact on her work and personal life, and the subsequent development of stress, anxiety, and a depressive disorder. The Tribunal found that Ms Cleland was not entitled to receive compensation under sections 24 and 27 of the Act.

Consequently, the AAT affirmed Comcare's reviewable decision of 30 March 2016, which had determined that Ms Cleland was not entitled to compensation for permanent impairment under sections 24 and 27 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth).