GSBX and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by GSBX against a decision by Comcare to refuse compensation for a psychological condition. The dispute centred on whether GSBX's employment had contributed to a significant degree to her condition, and whether any administrative actions taken by her employer were reasonable. The case was heard by J F Toohey SM.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether GSBX's employment contributed to a significant degree to the development or aggravation of her psychological condition. Secondly, if any reasonable administrative action taken by her employer contributed to her injury, whether that action was taken in a reasonable manner.

The court's reasoning was informed by extensive medical evidence from several psychiatrists and other medical professionals. While acknowledging the complexity and long-standing nature of GSBX's psychological condition, including a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, the court was satisfied that workplace stress was a significant contributing factor to her anxiety and depression. The court applied the principles from *Wiegand v Comcare Australia* and *Dean v Australian Postal Corporation*, finding that even if GSBX's perceptions of workplace events were influenced by her pre-existing condition, the incidents she complained of had occurred and her perception of them contributed materially to her condition or its aggravation. Furthermore, the court found that the decision to refuse GSBX leave for a motorcycle course was not undertaken in a reasonable manner, was not in accordance with usual practice, and lacked apparent foundation.

Consequently, the court set aside the decision under review. It substituted a decision that Comcare was liable under section 14 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* to compensate GSBX for her psychological injury.