Koker and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Koker for administrative review of a decision made by Comcare. Mr Koker, a youth worker, sustained a physical injury to his left knee in June 2013 while attempting to restrain a detainee. Comcare accepted liability for this knee condition. Subsequently, Mr Koker experienced psychological sequelae, including anxiety and depression, which he contended were secondary to his accepted physical injury and his subsequent return to work. The dispute centred on whether this psychological condition constituted a compensable injury under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) and, if so, its impact on his entitlement to compensation for incapacity for work.

The Tribunal was required to determine the nature and cause of Mr Koker's incapacity for work during specific periods. This involved assessing whether the psychological condition was an "injury" as defined by the Act, which includes a disease or an aggravation of an injury, and whether it was an "effective or operative cause" of his incapacity. The Tribunal also needed to consider the application of section 19 of the Act, which governs compensation for incapacity, and how to calculate the appropriate compensation amount, particularly in relation to the "AE in the formula" component.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in cases such as *Dunkerley and Comcare* and *Kavas and Comcare*, which clarify that an employee is entitled to compensation if an injury results in incapacity for work. The phrase "as a result of" requires a commonsense assessment of the causal chain, not necessarily the immediate proximate cause. The Tribunal found that Mr Koker's psychological condition was an injury that resulted in his incapacity for work. It affirmed Comcare's decision regarding certain periods but remitted other parts for reconsideration.

The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision of 27 April 2016 in relation to the periods of 21 May 2015 to 6 October 2015 and 18 December 2015. However, the Tribunal remitted the part of the decision relating to the period 7 October 2015 to 12 January 2016 (excluding 18 December 2015) to Comcare with directions to assign a value of nil to "AE in the formula" under section 19 and to take into account leave taken, public holidays, and days worked by Mr Koker. Comcare was also ordered to pay Mr Koker's costs.