Hutchinson and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned appeals by the Applicant against determinations by the Respondent, Comcare, which rejected her claims for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The Applicant had lodged claims for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Major Depressive Disorder, stemming from an incident during a workplace training workshop on 5 March 2010, where her director allegedly whispered a death threat to her. While Comcare had previously accepted liability for a major depressive disorder and later for PTSD with a secondary condition of major depressive disorder, the current appeals concerned subsequent claims and the Applicant's ongoing entitlement to compensation.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant continued to suffer from an injury, specifically PTSD or Major Depression, for which a claim had been made, and whether liability ought to be accepted for an alleged aggravation of her Major Depressive Disorder. The Tribunal was required to determine if the Applicant's current mental health issues constituted a "relevant injury" as defined by section 5A of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth), and if so, whether her employment contributed to that injury to a significant degree.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the medical evidence, particularly reports from Dr Jonathan Spear. While Dr Spear's earlier reports had indicated diagnoses consistent with Major Depressive Disorder and PTSD, his later reports, including a supplementary report, cast doubt on whether the Applicant's symptoms met the diagnostic criteria for Major Depressive Disorder as defined by the DSM. Dr Spear noted that while the Applicant had experienced episodic depressive symptoms, her clinical signs were not consistently consistent with the disorder, and he considered that her Major Depressive Episode may have resolved, being superseded by Agoraphobia. Furthermore, Dr Spear indicated that even if atrial flutter were excluded as a contributor to her agoraphobia, the degree of employment contribution to her mental health condition would be material but not significant, given other personal stressors and her vulnerability.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant's current mental health issues were contributed to, to a significant degree, by her employment. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not suffer from a relevant injury, namely PTSD or Major Depression, and therefore affirmed Comcare's decisions to reject the claims.