MMYB and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by MMYB against a decision by Comcare to affirm a determination that his claim for compensation was excluded under section 5A of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The dispute arose from MMYB's assertion that his chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) had been aggravated by his employment with the Australian Federal Police (AFP), specifically due to administrative actions including his transfer from the Joint Counter Terrorism Team and a subsequent temporary transfer to Perth Airport. Comcare had determined that these administrative actions were reasonable and taken in a reasonable manner, thus excluding MMYB's claim. The decision was heard by Cr Walsh SM.

The court was required to determine three primary issues. Firstly, whether MMYB had suffered an "ailment" or the aggravation of an "ailment". Secondly, if an ailment or its aggravation was established, whether it was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment with the AFP, thereby constituting a "disease" as defined by section 5B of the Act. Thirdly, and crucially, if the preceding conditions were met, whether MMYB's claim was excluded by section 5A of the Act, which precludes compensation for conditions resulting from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

The court's reasoning focused on the application of section 5A of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). While acknowledging that MMYB suffered from PTSD, the court found that the medical evidence, particularly from Dr Yue (Olivia) Lee, indicated that MMYB had not suffered an aggravation of his PTSD in the course of his employment with the AFP. Dr Lee's supplementary report stated that MMYB had not experienced any significant functional impairment until 2013 and that his cessation of work was likely multifactorial, not solely attributable to the disorder. Crucially, the court found that the aggravation of the ailment, if any, was not suffered as a result of the administrative actions taken by the AFP, but rather that the administrative actions themselves were reasonable. Therefore, the exclusionary provision of section 5A was not engaged in the manner Comcare had asserted, as the aggravation was not a consequence of the administrative action.

The court set aside Comcare's decision and substituted its own determination. It found that MMYB had suffered an aggravation of his ailment, and that this aggravation was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment with the AFP. However, it concluded that this aggravation was not the result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, and therefore, section 5A did not operate to exclude his claim.