Hollis and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Hollis for a review of a decision by Comcare that affirmed an earlier determination that Comcare was not liable to compensate Ms Hollis in respect of a claimed injury. The dispute centred on whether Ms Hollis had suffered an "ailment" or an "aggravation of such an ailment" and, if so, whether this was contributed to to a significant degree by her employment. A further question was whether the ailment was a "disease suffered as a result of administrative action taken in respect of the applicant's employment," particularly if the disease was suffered prior to the alleged administrative actions. The court was also required to consider whether the injury resulted in "incapacity for work, or impairment." The decision under review was set aside and remitted.

The legal issues before the court were: (1) whether Ms Hollis suffered an "ailment" or an "aggravation of such an ailment" within the meaning of the relevant Act; (2) if so, whether the ailment or aggravation was contributed to to a significant degree by her employment; (3) if the above were satisfied, whether the disease was suffered as a result of administrative action taken in respect of her employment, and if that action was reasonable and taken in a reasonable manner; and (4) if the previous conditions were not met, whether the injury resulted in "incapacity for work, or impairment." The court also considered the effect of an unqualified order remitting the matter from the Federal Court, determining that such an order ordinarily invites the Tribunal to reconsider the statutory task of review on the merits.

The court's reasoning focused on the medical evidence provided by Dr Allnutt, a Senior Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist. Dr Allnutt's reports and evidence indicated that Ms Hollis manifested a constellation of anxiety and depressive symptoms, which by September 2012 had reached the threshold of a major depressive episode. While acknowledging that Ms Hollis had experienced some symptoms prior to commencing her role in February 2012, Dr Allnutt concluded that her condition deteriorated from February 2012 onwards due to a perceived difficult workplace environment, bullying, and ostracism. The court accepted this evidence, finding that the major depressive disorder suffered by Ms Hollis was contributed to to a significant degree by her employment. The court also determined that the exclusion of the "reasonable administrative action" defence was appropriate in this instance.

The reviewable decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted to Comcare for reconsideration with a direction that Comcare was liable to compensate Ms Hollis in respect of the injury, being a major depressive disorder, which she suffered in 2012.