Gropel and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Gropel against a decision by Comcare to refuse her claim for compensation. Comcare had initially rejected her claim on the basis that her condition of major depressive disorder did not constitute an ailment under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act). On reconsideration, Comcare affirmed its decision, finding that while Ms Gropel suffered an adjustment disorder with symptoms of anxiety that was significantly contributed to by her employment, this condition arose from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, and therefore did not constitute an injury under the SRC Act. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was asked to review this decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Gropel suffered an injury as defined by the SRC Act. This involved considering whether her diagnosed psychiatric conditions, including chronic major depression with anxiety, generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and post-traumatic stress and anxiety syndrome, constituted an "injury" or "disease" under the Act. Crucially, the Tribunal had to assess whether any such condition was excluded from the definition of injury by the proviso relating to reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of an employee's employment.

The Tribunal preferred the medical evidence of Dr Weissman, who assessed Ms Gropel closer to the relevant events and provided oral evidence. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal found that Ms Gropel suffered from chronic major depression with anxiety, generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and post-traumatic stress and anxiety syndrome, with the date of the disease being 19 March 2014. However, the Tribunal also made findings regarding reasonable administrative action taken in respect of a meeting on 17 March 2014. Applying the principle from *Hart v Comcare*, which states that a disease suffered as a result of circumstances specified in the exclusionary proviso is not an injury, even if also suffered as a result of other employment-related circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that Ms Gropel was not entitled to compensation.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decision under review.