Kallimanis and Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (Compensation)

The case of *Kallimanis and Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (Compensation)* concerned an applicant who had lodged claims for compensation arising from his employment. The dispute centred on whether the applicant was entitled to further compensation for an Adjustment Disorder, which he claimed was a consequence of an injury sustained to his left biceps during a work incident on 12 January 2017, and the subsequent surgery and recovery period. The matter came before Linda Kirk SM of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold. Firstly, it had to determine whether the applicant's Adjustment Disorder constituted an "ailment" or a "disease" for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth), and crucially, whether it was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment. Secondly, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant was entitled to compensation under section 14 of the Act for this condition, in light of previous decisions and findings of fact. The Tribunal also addressed preliminary issues regarding estoppel and the power to limit evidence on matters already canvassed.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the definition of "injury" and "disease" under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). It applied the principles that an ailment is contributed to to a "significant degree" if it is substantially more than material. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and the findings from a previous decision, which had determined that the applicant's accepted left biceps tendon condition had been satisfactorily repaired and that there was no further entitlement to compensation for that specific injury or subsequent incapacity from 26 March 2018. The Tribunal affirmed the previous decisions, finding that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder was not an injury that resulted in incapacity or impairment arising out of, or in the course of, his employment, nor was it a disease contributed to to a significant degree by his employment.

The Tribunal affirmed the Second and Third Reviewable Decisions. It found that the respondent was not liable to accept liability for the applicant's Adjustment Disorder under section 14 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth).