Humphrey and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Humphrey against a decision by Comcare regarding his claim for compensation. The dispute centred on whether Mr Humphrey had provided notice of his injury, specifically Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with anxiety and depression, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of it, and whether Comcare had been prejudiced by any late notification. The case was heard by Deputy S A Forgie P.

The court was required to determine the meaning of "injury" and "disease" within the context of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act) and its predecessor, the *1971 Act*. Specifically, the court needed to consider when Mr Humphrey became aware that he was unwell and that this unwellness arose from or was contributed to by his work with the CBA, irrespective of whether a formal diagnosis of PTSD had been made at that time.

Deputy S A Forgie P considered the definition of "disease" as an "ailment" or aggravation of an ailment, referencing the decision in *Comcare v Mooi*. The court affirmed that the terms used in the SRC Act to define mental conditions should be understood according to their ordinary usage. It was held that a worker could demonstrate a mental ailment even if their condition did not align with a recognised medical label, provided they could show their state was outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour. The court affirmed the prior decision.