LYHH and Comcare (Compensation)

The applicant, LYHH, sought review of a decision by Comcare to cease liability for compensation for incapacity for work under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act). Comcare had initially accepted liability for LYHH’s major depressive disorder, single episode, with an injury date of 13 April 2004, following an incident at the Australian Taxation Office where she was questioned about a private conversation. Almost 11 years later, Comcare determined the condition had resolved and ceased liability for compensation for incapacity, though it continued to accept liability for medical treatment. LYHH requested a reconsideration, which resulted in Comcare varying the determination to affirm the denial of liability for compensation under s 19 of the SRC Act for incapacity for work. This reviewable decision was then challenged by LYHH before the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether LYHH continued to suffer an incapacity for work that was compensable by Comcare under the SRC Act, given Comcare's determination that her condition had resolved. This required the Tribunal to consider whether the events of 13 April 2004, or any subsequent factors, constituted a material contribution to a continuing incapacity, or if there had been a *novus actus interveniens* that broke the chain of causation. The Tribunal also had to assess the weight of conflicting medical evidence regarding the diagnosis, causation, and ongoing impact of LYHH's psychiatric condition.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the complex interplay of factors contributing to LYHH's condition and her ongoing incapacity. It considered the evidence from treating practitioners, including Dr Fitch, who maintained LYHH suffered from an enduring major depressive disorder, and independent medical examiner Dr Terace. Dr Terace expressed reservations about the certainty of causation for the initial condition, highlighting a diversity of factors, including personal stressors, medical procedures, and the Comcare process itself, which he believed had broken any causal link to the 2004 incident. He also raised concerns about the potential influence of the therapeutic relationship on Dr Fitch's opinions. The Tribunal noted that Dr Terace’s evolving opinion, informed by a review of the totality of the evidence, suggested that while the 2004 event might have been a transient contributor, it was unlikely to be the substantial cause of a present psychiatric disorder, especially given numerous other factors.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that, having regard to all the evidence, Comcare was not liable to pay compensation for incapacity to LYHH under the SRC Act. The decision under review, which affirmed Comcare's denial of liability for compensation for incapacity for work, was therefore affirmed.