Marshall and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned a claim for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) by an applicant, Mr Marshall, against Comcare. The dispute centred on whether Mr Marshall's adjustment disorder, which he alleged was precipitated by workplace events, constituted a compensable injury. Specifically, the claim involved allegations of bullying and harassment, and the central question was whether the applicant's condition arose as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in respect of his employment.

The Tribunal was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it needed to ascertain whether the applicant suffered from a new adjustment disorder or a significant aggravation of an existing one, and if this condition qualified as a "disease" under the *SRC Act*, meaning it was significantly contributed to by his employment. Secondly, the Tribunal had to consider whether certain administrative actions, namely a direction not to communicate with a particular colleague and a delay in disclosing a complaint made against the applicant, constituted "reasonable administrative action" taken in a "reasonable manner" as defined by the Act.

Senior Member O'Donovan reasoned that the applicant had indeed suffered from an adjustment disorder, or an aggravation of one, in April and May 2019, and that this condition was significantly contributed to by his employment. However, the Tribunal found that the specific administrative actions taken – the instruction to cease communication with Ms Watson and the delay in informing the applicant about a complaint against him – were reasonable. These actions were deemed reasonable in light of the applicant's prior inappropriate communication and the employer's objective to manage difficult workplace issues while the applicant was on leave. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's disease was not a compensable injury because it arose from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

As a result of these findings, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning Mr Marshall's claim for compensation was not successful.