De Tarle and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr De Tarle against a decision by Comcare regarding his claim for workers' compensation. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr De Tarle's employment with ASIC had contributed to a significant degree to the aggravation of his pre-existing psychiatric condition. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with determining the definitive issues in the case.

The Tribunal was required to determine three key questions: first, whether Mr De Tarle suffered an aggravation of his pre-existing psychiatric condition during his employment with ASIC; second, if so, whether this aggravation was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment; and third, if both the preceding questions were answered affirmatively, whether the aggravation was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including Mr De Tarle's own statements and medical records, as well as expert opinions. The Tribunal noted that Mr De Tarle believed he was "problem free" prior to his ASIC employment and that his condition worsened due to his work. However, the Tribunal also acknowledged evidence suggesting Mr De Tarle had suffered from severe chronic major depression and a comorbid personality disorder for over fourteen years, with recurrent episodes and antidepressant medication use predating his ASIC employment. The Tribunal found that while Mr De Tarle did experience an increase in depressive symptoms during his employment, and that his personality disorder significantly impacted his work performance and relationships, it was not satisfied that his employment contributed to a significant degree to the aggravation of his pre-existing psychiatric condition. The Tribunal applied principles from cases such as *Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May* and *Re Whitlock and Comcare*, emphasizing the need for evidence of a discernible or diagnosable physiological or psychiatric change to constitute an "aggravation" for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth).

The Tribunal concluded that while there was evidence of a change in Mr De Tarle's mental health, specifically an increase in depressive symptoms, it was not satisfied that this change constituted an aggravation of his pre-existing psychiatric condition that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.