FORD and COMCARE (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Ford against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had affirmed a determination by Comcare. Mr Ford sought compensation for a psychological injury allegedly sustained during his employment with the Australian Federal Police. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr Ford's condition was a 'disease' for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (the Act), and if so, whether it was contributed to by his employment.

The Federal Court was required to determine whether the AAT erred in law by failing to properly consider the evidence relating to the onset and progression of Mr Ford's psychological condition. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the AAT had correctly applied the principles established in *Comcare v Martin* regarding the distinction between an injury and a disease, and the evidentiary burden on an applicant to demonstrate that their employment contributed to the development of a disease.

The Court found that the AAT had misconstrued the nature of Mr Ford's condition, treating it as a single, discrete injury rather than a progressive disease. It held that the AAT's approach failed to adequately account for the cumulative effects of workplace stressors over time, which is a key characteristic of a disease. The Court reiterated that for a disease to be compensable under the Act, it must be contributed to by the employment, and that contribution can be established by demonstrating that the employment was a contributing factor, even if not the sole or predominant factor. The Court concluded that the AAT had applied an incorrect legal test in its assessment of the evidence.

The Federal Court allowed the appeal, set aside the AAT's decision, and remitted the matter to the AAT for redetermination according to law.