HGGJ and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by HGGJ against a decision by Comcare to affirm a determination that HGGJ no longer had a present entitlement to incapacity payments or medical expenses under sections 16 and 19 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). Comcare’s decision was based on the opinion that HGGJ’s compensable injury had resolved and that any ongoing symptoms were attributable to pre-existing, non-employment related factors. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether HGGJ continued to suffer the effects of the 2010 compensable injury and, if so, whether the other entitling circumstances for compensation under the Act existed during the relevant period and continued to the present.

The Tribunal considered several evidentiary issues. Firstly, it addressed Comcare’s lodging of photocopied summonsed documents under section 38AA of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). HGGJ objected to this, raising concerns about the potential extinguishment of implied undertakings of confidentiality. The Tribunal noted that HGGJ had not objected to the issue of the summonses or the inspection orders. It clarified that it was not its general practice to receive such documents in their entirety as exhibits and that, in any event, it was empowered by section 33 of the Act to inform itself in such manner as it thought appropriate, not being bound by the rules of evidence. Secondly, the Tribunal granted leave for new evidence from Dr SP, concerning a diagnosis of "other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder," to be admitted, despite its late disclosure, pursuant to section 66 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988*.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the conflicting medical evidence regarding the diagnosis of HGGJ's injury and whether the effects of the 2010 compensable injury had ceased. It considered the appropriateness of referring to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, and the history of adolescent abuse as potential contributing factors to HGGJ's condition. The Tribunal ultimately found that the burden of persuasion rested with Comcare to demonstrate that HGGJ's present symptoms arose from pre-existing conditions caused by non-employment factors, rather than the compensable injury. The Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decision.