Klinge and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against a decision by Comcare not to pay compensation. The applicant had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and the central dispute revolved around whether this condition, or specifically the applicant's first stress-induced psychotic episode, was materially contributed to by his employment. The case was heard by Deputy President Sosso of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. First, it needed to ascertain the precise condition from which the applicant was suffering. Second, it had to establish the relationship between the applicant's diagnosed schizophrenia and his first stress-induced psychotic episode, and whether this episode was causally linked to his employment.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal preferred the expert opinion of Dr Reddan over that of Dr Cotton, noting that Dr Reddan's assessment was made a quarter of a century after the applicant's first episode and benefited from a more extensive review of his medical history. The Tribunal accepted Dr Reddan's explanation that initial psychotic episodes can be misdiagnosed, with the signs of schizophrenia becoming apparent over time, and concluded that the applicant was suffering from schizophrenia, multiple episodes, in partial remission. The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the 1994 psychotic episode was the first clinically significant manifestation of the applicant's schizophrenia. Applying the principle from *Ogden Industries v Lucas* that aggravation means making an existing disease worse, and referencing the Full Federal Court's observations in *Holt v Comcare* regarding the need to prove a continuing condition and not merely a temporal or linear relationship, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish a causal link between the applicant's employment and the aggravation or onset of his schizophrenia.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that Comcare was not liable under section 14 of the Act to pay compensation to the applicant, and the decision under review was affirmed.