KBJP and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by KBJP against Comcare regarding compensation for ongoing psychological counselling. The dispute centred on whether the applicant's current condition, and the need for further treatment, was a continuation of or significantly contributed to by her employment injury, or if it stemmed from unrelated personal circumstances. The decision was made by P J Clauson SM.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant continued to suffer the effects of a condition caused by, or significantly contributed to by, her employment. This involved assessing whether her ongoing psychological counselling was reasonable treatment in relation to an accepted work-related injury, or if the condition requiring treatment was now solely attributable to personal or family issues unrelated to her employment. The Tribunal had to consider conflicting expert opinions and the applicant's own evidence regarding the origins of her psychological distress.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including the sworn testimony of the applicant and a Clinical Psychologist, Ms Gierlicz, as well as various medical reports and written statements. The applicant maintained that her condition was solely due to her work-related injury and not her family issues. However, a report from her treating Psychologist, Dr Robertson, indicated that by December 2019, the applicant's condition was rooted in traumatic family circumstances unrelated to her employment. The applicant disputed aspects of Dr Robertson's report, particularly regarding the timing of discussions about family issues, and asserted that her treatment needs were exclusively work-related. The Tribunal noted that while the applicant had been diagnosed with PTSD by a new psychologist and was undergoing EMDR treatment, this diagnosis and treatment were not before the Tribunal in the context of the accepted injury.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision.