LRJK and Telstra Corporation Limited (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for compensation for permanent impairment arising from a psychological injury. The applicant, born in 1975, sustained a lower back injury in January 2006 during his employment with Telstra Corporation Limited. Liability was accepted for this injury, and subsequently, on 25 July 2007, liability was also accepted for an adjustment disorder with depressed moods, which was considered secondary to the back injury. The applicant's employment with Telstra ceased in 2008. The applicant later commenced new employment in 2012. In 2013, Telstra accepted liability for permanent impairment compensation in respect of the lumbar back strain. In 2014, the applicant lodged a claim for permanent impairment compensation related to the psychological injury. The case was heard by Ms J C Kelly, Senior Member, of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant suffered an impairment as a result of the 2007 psychological injury, whether that impairment was permanent, and if so, the degree of that permanent impairment, assessed in accordance with the Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment. Section 4 of the relevant Act defines impairment, while section 24 outlines Comcare's liability to pay compensation for permanent impairment, specifying factors to consider when determining permanence, such as the duration of the impairment, the likelihood of improvement, and whether all reasonable rehabilitative treatment has been undertaken. Crucially, compensation is not payable if the impairment is less than 10% whole person impairment (WPI).

The Tribunal considered the evidence, including reports from various psychiatrists and oral evidence from the applicant and two psychiatrists. The respondent relied heavily on the opinion of Dr C, who assessed the applicant as suffering a mild, resolving chronic adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood, with good prospects of further resolution. Dr C believed any current impairment was likely minimal and that further treatment was not indicated, noting the applicant had ceased treatment over 12 months prior. In contrast, the Tribunal found that Doctors P, S1, C, and Associate Professor R all accepted that the applicant had an impairment caused by his psychological condition, though their diagnoses varied. The Tribunal noted the difficulty presented by the fluctuating nature of the applicant's impairment, which had persisted for over 10 years since July 2007. After analysing the applicant's medical history, including early reports from Dr S2 which indicated significant improvement with medication, and the applicant's own evidence of suicidal ideation, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did suffer from an impairment.

The Tribunal set aside the reviewable decision and substituted a new decision. It was determined that the applicant was entitled to receive compensation under sections 24 and 27 of the Act for permanent impairment. This permanent impairment was assessed as an adjustment disorder with depressed moods, rated at 10% WPI.