Mitchell and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review of decisions made by Comcare regarding claims by the applicant, a former employee of the Department of Defence. The applicant sought compensation under s 16 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) for boxing classes and sought for a law degree to be included as part of a rehabilitation program under s 37 of the Act. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant continued to suffer from a compensable "disease" as defined by the Act during the relevant periods.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to ascertain whether the applicant suffered from an aggravation of a compensable injury on 5 December 2019 and, if so, whether that condition still constituted a "disease" as defined in ss 4 and 5B of the Act. Secondly, the court had to consider whether, in light of s 37(1) of the Act, any rehabilitation program should be provided from 5 December 2019. Finally, if a rehabilitation program was deemed appropriate, the court had to assess whether including a law degree was the preferable decision, having regard to the factors outlined in s 37(3) of the Act.

The court reasoned that while the applicant had suffered from an adjustment disorder, by the relevant periods of review, this disorder no longer had a significant impact on his functioning, with other contributing factors having a far greater impact. Consequently, the court found that during the period between 10 September 2018 and 30 February 2019, the applicant did not suffer a "disease" as defined in s 4(1) and s 5B of the Act, meaning he was not entitled to medical treatment under s 16. Furthermore, as at 5 December 2019, the applicant did not suffer a "disease" under s 5B, and therefore, the prerequisites for a rehabilitation program under s 37(1) were not met.

In accordance with s 43 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth), the reviewable decision dated 1 July 2019 was affirmed. The reviewable decision dated 23 April 2020 was set aside, and in substitution, it was found that as at 5 December 2019, the applicant did not suffer a "disease" under s 5B of the Act, meaning no rehabilitation program was required. There were no orders as to costs.