Mador and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Mador against a decision by Comcare to deny her claim for compensation for a psychological ailment. Ms Mador alleged that she had suffered a psychological injury due to workplace bullying and pressure to accept redundancy from her employer, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Comcare's decision was reviewed by Dr I Alexander, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Mador suffered a psychological ailment that constituted a "disease" for the purposes of section 5B of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth), and whether this disease was contributed to, to a significant degree, by her employment. Crucially, the Tribunal also had to determine if Ms Mador's ailment resulted from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of her employment, which would render it non-compensable under the Act.

The Tribunal considered Ms Mador's evidence detailing alleged bullying, pressure to transfer or accept redundancy, and false allegations made against her. It also examined her GP records and a request for reconsideration. The Tribunal applied the principles of reasonableness as discussed in *Bropho v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission* and *Comcare v Martinez (No 2)*, which require an objective assessment of whether an action bears a rational relationship to the activity and is not disproportionate. The Tribunal was satisfied that the "Compass meeting" on 18 February 2019, where concerns about Ms Mador's behaviour were raised, constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Ms Mador's ailment was a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of her employment, and therefore, it was not compensable under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988*.