Kroes and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant, Ms Kroes, against two reviewable decisions made by Comcare. The dispute centred on Ms Kroes' entitlement to compensation for treatment costs related to a workplace injury, specifically arising from alleged bullying by a colleague, Mr Chan, during her employment with the Department. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with determining whether Ms Kroes continued to suffer from her accepted injury and required further treatment.

The AAT was required to consider the nature of the Applicant's accepted injury, which stemmed from her interactions with Mr Chan. The Tribunal needed to assess whether the Applicant's perception of Mr Chan's behaviour, including his alleged uncooperative attitude, anger, and intimidating manner, constituted workplace bullying and contributed to her ongoing condition. Crucially, the AAT had to determine if the medical opinions supporting the need for further treatment were adequately based on factual findings regarding the Applicant's injury and its ongoing impact.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant continued to suffer from her accepted injury and required treatment. It accepted the Applicant's evidence regarding her problematic relationship with Mr Chan, noting that departmental investigations corroborated difficulties experienced by others with him. The AAT specifically accepted that the Applicant had a pre-existing perception of animosity from Mr Chan, which was exacerbated by an incident on 11 May 2012. Based on this, the Tribunal set aside the reviewable decisions.

Consequently, the AAT ordered that the two reviewable decisions be set aside. The Applicant was awarded the costs of ten further psychological treatments with Mr Goodluck, and if she had already paid for these treatments, she was to be reimbursed at the schedule rate. The Applicant was also awarded her costs of the action.