Flood and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by an applicant against Comcare, heard by Ms S Taglieri SC, Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The dispute centred on whether the applicant continued to suffer from a condition for which Comcare had accepted liability, and if so, whether she was entitled to ongoing compensation for incapacity, medical treatment, permanent impairment, and non-economic loss. Comcare had previously accepted liability for certain conditions until 16 October 2017, and the core of the proceedings involved determining the applicant's status after this date.

The Tribunal was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, it needed to identify the specific conditions for which Comcare had accepted liability up to 16 October 2017. Secondly, it had to ascertain whether the applicant continued to suffer from these conditions after that date, and if so, whether this resulted in a continuing incapacity for work or a need for reasonable medical treatment. Finally, the Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss if she continued to suffer from the identified conditions post-16 October 2017.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered written and oral submissions from both parties, along with extensive documentary evidence, including expert medical reports from a Consultant Physician and a Consultant Psychiatrist, and the applicant's own evidence. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's condition as a Somatoform Disorder (SSD) based on the evidence and the principles in *Telstra Corporation Limited v Hannaford*. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant continued to suffer the effects of SSD after 16 October 2017, preferring the opinions of Dr Reid over those of Dr Chow regarding ongoing causation. The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant had not been consciously dishonest in her portrayal of symptoms, attributing any inconsistencies to the nature of SSD itself. The Tribunal noted that while the respondent did not carry a strict onus of proof, it needed sufficient material to be persuaded that the effects of the injury had ceased to affirm the decision under review. The Tribunal found that the applicant's demeanour and the nature of SSD explained variations in her evidence. Despite these findings, the Tribunal emphasised the need to assess impairment based on objective evidence, particularly the video surveillance footage, which provided a perspective unaffected by the applicant's focus on her condition and claims.