Keating and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, a 70-year-old former employee of the Department, for workers' compensation for a major depressive disorder (MDD) with associated anxiety. The Applicant alleged that the aggravation of his pre-existing MDD was caused by work-related stress, specifically a conflict with two supervisors, Mr I and Col H, and subsequent administrative actions. The Respondent, Comcare, argued that any aggravation of the Applicant's condition was a result of administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, and therefore excluded from compensation under section 5A of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The case was heard by B J Illingworth SM and L Stephan M.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Respondent could successfully rely on the exclusion in section 5A of the SRC Act. This required determining whether the aggravation of the Applicant's MDD was a consequence of administrative action taken by the Department in a reasonable manner. The Applicant contended that the events of 6 March 2019, including a meeting with Mr I and a subsequent meeting with Mr Luke, were the key causal factors for the aggravation, and that these actions were not reasonable administrative actions. Alternatively, the Applicant argued that even if subsequent administrative actions, such as disciplinary procedures, were causal, they were not undertaken reasonably, thus disentitling the Respondent from relying on the exclusion.

The Tribunal considered the definition of "ailment" under section 4(1) of the SRC Act, which includes any mental disorder. It was not disputed that the Applicant suffered from MDD, an ailment, and that its aggravation was contributed to by his employment. The Tribunal focused on the administrative actions taken by the Department, particularly the Notification of Suspected Misconduct and the subsequent investigation. The Tribunal accepted evidence that the Notification of Suspected Misconduct was a notice of suspension, not a notice of an intended decision requiring prior comment. It found that the Applicant was given an opportunity to respond to the notification upon his return to work, which included various attachments detailing the alleged misconduct. The Tribunal also considered emails exchanged between departmental officers regarding the Applicant's mental health and the safety of the workplace, and the Applicant's argument that these were not disclosed and that their omission denied him procedural fairness.