Percival and Comcare (Compensation) - [2022] AATA 3728

Percival and Comcare (Compensation) [2022] AATA 3728 (4 November 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2019/2635
Re:Mr Darryl Shane Percival
APPLICANT

AndComcare
RESPONDENT

Decision
Tribunal:Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD
Date:4 November 2022
Place:Brisbane

Pursuant to subsection 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), I vary the reviewable decision dated 15 March 2019, to determine that, the applicant suffered from PTSD from the date of his claim and that liability for compensation for incapacity and treatment was correctly accepted on 23 January 2017, and that such liability ceased on
7 October 2020 as a result of the applicant’s condition having resolved by this date.
.............................[SGD]...........................................
Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD
Catchwords
COMPENSATION – Post traumatic stress disorder – Injury – Disease – Applicant diagnosed with Post traumatic stress disorder caused by workplace exposure – Cease effects determination amended to reflect previous diagnoses of condition - Post traumatic stress disorder under remission – No further liability for compensation and treatment – Where decision under review varied
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases
Moon and Telstra Corporation [2006] AATA 996
Prica and Comcare [1996] AATA 218
Smith and Comcare [2002] AATA 249
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD
4 November 2022
INTRODUCTION

This application concerns an application for review by Mr Darryl Shane Percival (‘the applicant’) of a decision of the respondent, dated 15 March 2019 to cease liability under s16 and s19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (‘the SRC Act’) for the accepted condition of posttraumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’), with a date of effect from 24 January 2019.
Background
In October 2005, the applicant commenced employment at the Department of Customs and Border Protection (now named Department of Home Affairs) (‘the Department’) as a Level 1 Border Force Officer at the Brisbane International Airport.[1] The applicant was employed on a part time basis (‘MIPT’). In 2006 the applicant completed training in examining objectionable material (‘Reg4A examinations’).[2] By June 2007, the applicant was working full time hours in the Brisbane International Mail Facility.[3] The applicant’s duties in this role included Reg4A examinations.[4]
[1] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3; R3.
[2] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3; R3.
[3] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3; R3.
[4] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3; R3.
The applicant underwent a re-certification process to continue to be able to perform Reg4A examinations in late 2010.[5] During this re-certification process the applicant remarked that he identified he was ‘exhibiting the signs of psychological trauma’ as outlined in the re-certification process.[6] This resulted in the applicant withdrawing from the re-certification process and saw him further withdraw from performing Reg4A examinations.[7] The applicant states that as a result of withdrawing from these duties, he was subjected to bullying from senior officers.[8]
[5] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3; R3.
[6] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
[7] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3; R3.
[8] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
The applicant was referred to the Department’s Workplace Health and Safety Team with respect to his absences from work. The applicant attributes these absences to his irritable bowel syndrome (‘IBS’), viral infections and depression.[9]
[9] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R3.
The applicant was transferred to the Brisbane International Airport in July of 2013 and commenced employment as a Level 1 Operational Officer.[10] The applicant worked in this role on a 24-hour, 7 days rotating roster, with an average of 73.5 hours per fortnight.[11] On 24 January 2014, the applicant commenced a graduated return to work programme.[12]
[10] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3; R3.
[11] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3; R3.
[12] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle. R3.
On 22 April 2015 the applicant submitted a Workplace Health and Safety incident report. In this report, the applicant stated he has been diagnosed with PTSD stemming from examinations of objectionable material whilst undertaking his employment duties at the International Mail Centre.[13] The applicant stated that he was experiencing invasive memories and flashbacks relating to specific examinations that he performed. The earliest of which occurred in July 2007.[14]
[13] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T12.
[14] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R3.
The applicant ceased work in August 2016 and attempted to return to work several times before returning to work in a full-time capacity. Later, in November 2016, the applicant submitted a claim for workers’ compensation for PTSD. The applicant submitted that the origins of his PTSD were related to his examination of and exposure to ‘abhorrent material’ while performing the Reg4A examinations.[15] In this application, the applicant noted that these symptoms were first noticed by him in 2010 and treatment was first sought in 2015.[16]
[15] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T6.
[16] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T6.
In this application for compensation, the applicant stated:
·That in 2006 he undertook a training course which enable him to conduct Reg4A examinations.
·That from 2007 to 2010 he undertook many examinations of imports and different types of media, as required by his duties, to determine whether they contained objectionable material.
·That these examinations can take days to complete, citing one instance where hundreds of DVDs had to be examined.
·That in 2010 he participated in a refresher course. Whilst in this refresher course the applicant recognised that he was suffering from his exposure to the traumatic material and requested that he not conduct any further Reg4A examinations.[17]
[17] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T6.
On 23 January 2017 Comcare accepted liability under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (‘SRC Act’) for PTSD with date of injury as 22 April 2015.[18]
[18] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T12.
By way of email correspondence dated 8 November 2018 the applicant was advised of the respondent’s intention to determine that there does not exist any present liability in relation to his PTSD condition (which had been previously accepted).[19]
[19] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T36.
Comcare, on 24 January 2019, determined that there was no present liability to pay compensation for treatment expenses under s 16 and s 19 of the SRC Act. In coming to this determination, the evidence of Dr Isailovic that the applicant does not presently suffer from a work-related condition, was preferred by the delegate.[20]
[20] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T40.
The applicant subsequently sought to have the determination reconsidered by the respondent on 18 February 2019.[21]
[21] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T42.
On 15 March 2019, the respondent affirmed the determination dated 24 January 2019 which determined there was no present liability for the respondent with regard to treatment and incapacity for work under sections 16 and 19 of the SRC Act respectively.[22] It was noted by the review officer that the applicant had returned to fulltime pre-injury hours. Like the delegate, the review officer preferred the evidence of Dr Isailovic that the applicant’s ongoing treatment needs related to his non-compensable Major Depressive Disorder (‘MDD’) and/or his other non-compensable conditions.[23]
[22] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T48.
[23] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T48.
On 10 May 2019 an application for review of the reconsideration decision dated
[24] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T2.
15 March 2019 was lodged with this Tribunal.[24]
A Hearing by Microsoft Teams was conducted on 13 September 2021. The applicant was self-represented and gave evidence under affirmation.[25]
[25] Transcript of proceedings.
Issues
The issues for my determination are:
(a)Whether the applicant has an entitlement to compensation for medical expenses under s 16 of the SRC Act and incapacity payments under s 19 of the SRC Act since 24 January 2019.
(b)Whether the applicant presently suffers from the accepted condition of PTSD or a non-compensable condition.
(c)Whether the medical treatment the applicant seeks to be compensated for (pursuant to s 16 of the SRC Act) is reasonable treatment in relation to a compensable condition.
(d)Whether the applicant is incapacitated to such a degree that he suffers an incapacity for work pursuant to the SRC Act and whether this incapacity for work is as a result of a compensable condition (namely PTSD).
In order to determine the above issues, I must first look to the relevant legislation provided in the SRC Act.
Section 16 of the SRC Act provides:
16 Compensation in respect of medical expenses etc
(1)Where an employee suffers an injury, Comcare is liable to pay, in respect of the cost of medical treatment obtained in relation to the injury (being treatment that it was reasonable for the employee to obtain in the circumstances), compensation of such amount as Comcare determines is appropriate to that medical treatment.
Note: Compensation is not payable under this subsection in relation to certain claims (see section 119A).
(2)Subsection (1) applies whether or not the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.
…
Section 19 of the SRC Act provides:
19 Compensation for injuries resulting in incapacity
(1)This section applies to an employee who is incapacitated for work as a result of an injury, other than an employee to whom section 20, 21, 21A or 22 applies.
…
Section 5A of the SRC Act defines ‘injury’ to mean:
5A Definition of injury
(1) In this Act:
injury means:
(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b) an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment; or
(c) an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
but does not include a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment.
…
Section 5B of the SRC Act defines ‘disease’ to mean:
5B Definition of disease
(1) In this Act:
disease means:
(a) an ailment suffered by an employee; or
(b) an aggravation of such an ailment;
that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee.
(2) In determining whether an ailment or aggravation was contributed to, to a significant degree, by an employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee, the following matters may be taken into account:
(a) the duration of the employment;
(b) the nature of, and particular tasks involved in, the employment;
(c) any predisposition of the employee to the ailment or aggravation;
(d) any activities of the employee not related to the employment;
(e) any other matters affecting the employee’s health.
This subsection does not limit the matters that may be taken into account.
(3) In this Act:
significant degree means a degree that is substantially more than material.
Section 14 of the SRC Act provides:
14Compensation for injuries
(1) Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.
(2) Compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is intentionally self‑inflicted.
(3) Compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is caused by the serious and wilful misconduct of the employee but is not intentionally self‑inflicted, unless the injury results in death, or serious and permanent impairment.
Medical Evidence
A number of medical reports and pieces of medical evidence has been submitted in these proceedings. These reports span from 2010 – 2020.[26] I chronologically outline the material from which I have gained the most assistance below.
[26] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T4; T5; T7; T9; T10; T11; T13-T35;
Report of Dr Edwin Butler dated 15 May 2010
Dr Edwin Butler (‘Dr Butler’), occupational physician, provided a report dated 15 May 2010. This report was provided to the applicant’s employer and noted the applicant had a significant number of unplanned absences. It was noted by Dr Butler that the applicant advised he suffers from IBS which had been well controlled since February of that year. Dr Butler additionally noted the applicant was exhibiting Ross River Fever symptoms.[27]
[27] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T4.
Report of Ms Joanne Yang dated 16 March 2011
Ms Joanne Yang (‘Ms Yang’), occupational therapist, completed a report dated 16 March 2011, at the request of the applicant’s employer. It was noted in this report that the applicant advised Ms Yang that he had been infected with Barmah Forest Virus in December 2010.[28] The applicant reported that this caused joint pain (predominantly in his arms and hands). The applicant stated that this caused him to take time off work from December 2010 to March 2011.[29] Consistent with the applicant’s reporting above, he also identified to Ms Yang that he suffered from IBS which historically had caused him to take time off work.[30]
[28] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T8.
[29] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T8.
[30] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T8.
Ms Yang noted that the applicant had been cleared to return to work with reduced hours from 14 March 2011.[31] Ms Yang provided several recommendations to assist the applicant in his return to work. These included rectifying the applicant’s “suboptimal workstation setup” and ensuring that the applicant’s work hours were consistent with his capacity, as advised by his treating doctor.[32]
[31] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T8.
[32] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T8.
Report of Ms Kerry Flanigan dated 29 November 2011
Ms Kerry Flanigan (‘Ms Flanigan’), occupational therapist, provided a report dated 29 November 2011 to the applicant’s employer, at the employer’s request.[33] The report of Ms Flanigan notes that the applicant reported that he suffered from fatigue and abdominal discomfort. The applicant remarked to Ms Flanigan that he also suffered from stress caused by his absences from work due to the fatigue and abdominal discomfort.[34]
[33] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T8.
[34] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T8.
Report of Ms Kerri Flanigan dated 21 January 2014
Ms Flanigan provided an Initial Assessment Report dated 21 January 2014 at the request of the applicant’s employer.[35] It was noted in this report that the applicant disclosed his history of fatigue and joint pain, and that he had been diagnosed with IBS and Barmah Forest Virus.[36] The applicant stated that his symptoms would vary in severity over an extended period of time (several years) and that this had caused significant absences from work.[37]
[35] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T8.
[36] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T8.
[37] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T8.
Ms Flanigan’s report indicated that the applicant returned to work with his usual hours and duties in January 2013. By mid-2013 the applicant had transferred to a different role within the Department at the Brisbane International Airport as a Customs Officer. After a training course, the applicant stated that he experienced an exacerbation of the fatigue and joint pain symptoms in November 2014.[38]
[38] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T8.
Report of Dr Marcus Navin dated 6 August 2014
Dr Marcus Navin (‘Dr Navin’), occupational physician, provided a report dated 6 August 2014 to the applicant’s employer at their request.[39] Dr Navin remarked that the applicant had been diagnosed with fibromyalgia, depression, chronic fatigue syndrome, and IBS.[40]
[39] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5.
[40] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5, pages 16-17.
With respect to the applicant’s IBS condition, Dr Navin remarked that “… IBS is acknowledged to be a condition associated with mental health conditions”.[41] Dr Navin further remarked that the applicant’s IBS condition was diagnosed following a normal colonoscopy in 2008 which was followed by a normal CT colonoscopy in 2012.[42] The applicant also advised Dr Navin that he is able to mostly control his IBS through dietary management and chlorophyll supplementation. Dr Navin additionally remarked that it is relevant to note that the applicant had no overseas travel “as a source of intestinal upset”.[43]
[41] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5, page 16.
[42] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5, page 16.
[43] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5, page 16.
With regard to the applicant’s condition of fibromyalgia, Dr Navin stated that the applicant advised him the diagnosis was made on the basis of pains in his arms and shoulders. Dr Navin noted that the applicant does not satisfy the formal diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia.[44]
[44] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5.
The applicant further reported to Dr Navin that:
he sleeps well when he sleeps and this is in fact has always been a problem for him. But more recently he has been having some sleep disturbance with lack of ability to go to sleep easily”.[45]
[45] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5, page 16.
Dr Navin’s report states that the applicant described his depression as being in a fog.[46] Dr Navin remarked that due to the applicant’s youth, he was not provided a mental health care plan, however, had been prescribed antidepressants.[47] Relevantly, Dr Navin noted that the applicant had not been provided with support from Reframe and Refocus, CBT, acceptance and commitment therapy or mindfulness therapy.[48]
[46] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5, page 17.
[47] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5.
[48] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5.
With respect to the treatment the applicant was receiving, Dr Navin noted that the applicant was “taking a multiplicity of different varieties of medications for uncertain benefit”.[49] Dr Navin further remarked that the test results provided to him by the applicant were well within the normal values for a person of his age.[50] Dr Navin also noted the applicant’s hypertension condition and that he had been prescribed medication for this condition.[51]
[49] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5, page 17.
[50] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5.
[51] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5.
Dr Navin further remarked:
Essentially, [the applicant] has no active particular difficult symptoms at this time. They are nonspecific and reflect his personal orientation. I … provided him with advice and information within the limits of the circumstances of the engagement. [The applicant] presented affably and engaged appropriately.[52]
[52] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5, page 18.
In response to the question of whether the applicant was fit to carry out the duties of his substantive position, Dr Navin remarked:
I would advise that following an appropriate conditioning fitness role that [the applicant] could return to his normal activities without jeopardy to himself or his circumstance. I consider that Customs has been very conscious of providing [the applicant] with every assistance at this time.
[The applicant] may now, given the information provided and his consideration of this information, consider whether he wishes to actively pursue a different treatment modality that is evidence based for his condition. Should he complete such a program then he would be fit for his substantive position.
…
He does not meet the criteria for his position at this time. It is reasonable to consider what may be the outcome of any lack, and recovery, from the evidence based therapy.[53]
[53] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T5, pages 19-20.
Clinical Notes of Ms Muriel Cole

The clinical notes of Ms Muriel Cole (‘Ms Cole’), the applicant’s treating psychologist, record that a DASS21 assessment was undertaken on 11 June 2015, and that the results were within the normal range.[54] The clinical notes of Ms Cole also indicate that the applicant did not meet most diagnostic criteria on the PTSD checklist to be diagnosed with PTSD as at 11 June 2015.[55]
[54] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T15.
[55] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T15, page 136.
Ms Cole’s clinical notes also record that there was a substantial improvement in the applicant’s energy and mood had improved since the last time these assessments were undertaken and had stabilised.[56]
[56] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T15.
Ms Cole’s clinical notes of 31 July 2015 record a reduction in the applicant’s reported symptoms (as assessed by the DASS21 and PTSD checklist) and note that the applicant reported he was coping well with work and that his attendance was regular.[57] The applicant further reported to Ms Cole that he was motivated to engage in tasks and had even completed some overtime recently.[58] Despite the references to improvements in the applicant’s conditions, the Mental Health Plan dated 31 July 2015 records that the applicant was diagnosed with depression and PTSD.[59]
[57] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T15.
[58] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T15.
[59] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T15.
Report of Dr Marjolein de Vries dated 11 November 2016
Dr Marjolein de Vries (‘Dr de Vries’) provided a medical certificate on 11 November 2016 to the Department. Dr de Vries stated that the applicant suffered from ‘PTSD with symptoms of depression, anxiety and panic attacks, increased heart rate, shaking hands and flashbacks’.[60]
[60] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T6.
Dr de Vries remarked that the cause of the applicant’s PTSD was due to him having viewed objectionable material between 2006 and 2010. De de Vries further noted the applicant had a pre-existing condition of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.[61]
[61] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T6.
Report of Dr Marjolein de Vries dated 30 November 2016
Dr de Vries provided the respondent on 30 November 2016, in which she remarked that the applicant suffered PTSD and that he had first consulted with her regarding his PTSD symptoms in May of 2016.[62]
[62] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T7.
Report of Ms van der Torre dated 15 December 2016
Ms van der Torre, psychologist, provided a report to the respondent dated 15 December 2016.[63] That report outlined her relationship to the applicant, stating that she had first seen the applicant on 11 October 2016.[64] Ms van der Torre stated that it was outside of the scope of the service she provided to provide a formal clinical diagnosis.[65] Ms van der Torre however, opined that the symptoms reported by the applicant were consistent with a diagnosis of PTSD, however, this statement was qualified by a deference to the opinion of a psychiatrist.[66] Ms van der Torre further remarked that the applicant had disclosed experiences of two particularly traumatic event. These events were being required to view and organise a very large amount of objectionable material and having viewed an aggressive interrogation of a suspect.[67]
[63] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T9.
[64] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T9.
[65] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T9.
[66] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T9.
[67] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T9.
Report of Dr Klug dated 19 December 2016
On 19 December 2016, Dr Klug, psychiatrist, provided a report to the respondent, at their request.[68] Dr Klug outlined that the applicant had been absent from work since mid-July of that year. Dr Klug stated that the applicant reported a history of flashbacks related to his work conducting Reg4A examinations since 2013.[69] Dr Klug opined that the applicant’s condition was consistent with both MDD and PTSD, with the first clinically significant symptoms starting in 2010 and 2014 respectively.[70] Upon examination, Dr Klug remarked that the applicant displayed no overt signs of depression or anxiety. Dr Klug was of the opinion that the applicant would be able to return to work, in his pre-injury capacities, commencing January 2017.[71]
[68] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T10.
[69] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T10.
[70] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T10.
[71] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T10.
Rehabilitation Assessment Report dated 13 January 2017
A report on the applicant’s rehabilitation was provided at the request of the Department.[72] This report outlined the reports of the applicant that there had been a gradual onset of symptoms, commencing in 2007 which the applicant attributed to having viewed a substantial volume of objectional material.[73] The report further outlined the applicant’s statements that it during a workplace safety training session on the topic, that he recognised he was experiencing the signs of psychological trauma.[74] This report contained an action plan to assist in the applicant’s return to work.[75]
[72] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T11.
[73] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T11.
[74] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T11.
[75] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T11.
Rehabilitation Progress Report dated 23 March 2017
On 23 March 2017, a report by Ms Whitelaw was provided to the Department, at their request.[76]
The progress report outlined a reporting of a decline in the psychological condition of the applicant, which resulted in him being unable to work for a week in February and March of that year. This decline was attributed by the applicant to stressors external from the workplace, including non-payment of his salary and delays with an income protection insurance claim.[77] The applicant was certified as unfit for work from

13 February 2017 through to 17 April 2017.[78]
[76] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T13.
[77] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T13.
[78] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T13.
Report of Dr Zsadanyi dated 23 March 2017
Dr Zsadanyi provided a report at the request of the Department dated 23 March 2017.[79]
[79] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T14.
[80] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T14.
[81] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T14.
[82] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T14.
[83] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T14.
Dr Zsadanyi reported that the applicant’s then current anxiety levels had been increased by payroll issues and financial stressors. Dr Zsadanyi further opined that the applicant met the DSM-V criteria for PTSD and concurrent MDD.[80] Dr Zsadanyi remarked that the applicant would likely suffer from and be affected by the symptoms of PTSD for many years to come and potentially the rest of his life.[81] Dr Zsadanyi remarked that relapses of PTSD could result from certain triggers but could also be affected by factors unrelated to his condition. With regard to the applicant’s MDD, Dr Zsadanyi remarked that the applicant would be more prone to depressive episodes, noting the applicant’s PTSD condition.[82] Dr Zsadanyi stated that the applicant as unfit for work for a period of three months and that he required assertive treatment with a psychologist.[83]
Report of Ms Muriel Cole dated 30 March 2017
On 30 March 2017 Ms Cole provided a report to the respondent which stated she had seen the applicant for the first time on 29 January 2015 and that she had last seen him on
[84] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T15.
[85] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T15.
31 July 2015.[84] Ms Cole remarked that she had initially diagnosed the applicant’s condition as depression. However, after the applicant had disclosed the extent of his duties engaging in Reg4A examinations and considering all reported symptoms, she opined that the applicant met the DSM-V criteria for PTSD. Ms Cole stated that she was unable to comment on the applicant’s ability to work.[85]
Supplementary Report of Dr Zsadanyi dated 28 April 2017
Dr Zsadanyi provided a supplementary report on 28 April 2017 at the request of the Department.[86] Dr Zsadanyi stated that their opinion remain unchanged from their earlier report. In response to a question posed to them, Dr Zsadanyi remarked that it would be a difficult undertaking to disentangle the symptoms of the applicant’s conditions of PTSD and MDD.[87] Dr Zsadanyi stated that having a diagnosis of PTSD increases the risk of having a depressive disorder.[88] It was also the opinion of Dr Zsadanyi that the applicant would be better positioned to focus on treatment and rehabilitation once the external stressors on the applicant were resolved.[89]
[86] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T16.
[87] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T16.
[88] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T16.
[89] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T16.
APM Compensation Rehabilitation Program Progress Report dated 17 May 2017
On 17 May 2017, Ms Whitelaw provided a further report to the respondent in which she stated the applicant remained medically unfit for work, as certified by his General Practitioner (‘GP’) until 5 June 2017.[90] Ms Whitelaw reported the applicant’s report of continued external stressors (financial) relating to non-payment of wages and having been notified that there was an overpayment of his salary.[91]
[90] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T17.
[91] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T17.
APM Compensation Rehabilitation Program Progress Report dated 25 July 2017
On 25 July 2017, Ms Whitelaw provided a further report which stated that the applicant had commenced a graduated return to work programme on 7 June 2017.[92] The applicant reported that there was a setback due to an issue he had experienced in the workplace on 17 July 2017. The applicant was certified as unfit for work until 31 July 2017.[93]
[92] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T18.
[93] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T18.
Report of Dr Lovell dated 6 October 2017
On 6 October 2017 Dr Lovell, psychiatrist, provided a report at the request of the respondent.[94] Dr Lovell stated that the applicant had been off work since 7 July 2017. The applicant reported to Dr Lovell a history, particularly relating to the extent of his duties conducting Reg4A examinations, consistent with that outlined to other medical professionals above. The applicant explained to Dr Lovell the workplace issue he had experienced on 17 July 2017, which was that two colleagues had enquired about his health, after which he became concerned with the handling of his private information being disclosed, resulting in an increase in his PTSD symptoms.[95] The applicant also reported external stressors, being the death of family members.
[94] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T20.
[95] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T20.
Dr Lovell stated that the applicant met the criteria for PTSD and that his MDD was in partial remission.[96] Dr Lovell was also of the opinion that the applicant’s PTSD condition was related to his employment to a significant degree.[97] Dr Lovell also remarked that in his opinion, the applicant’s condition has not been superseded by a different condition.
[96] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T20.
[97] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T20.
Dr Lovell stated that the applicant would be capable of returning to work but not in a position that required him to be viewing objectionable material. Dr Lovell remarked that a graduated return to full-time hours over two months would be appropriate. Dr Lovell further remarked the applicant should continue his anti-depressants and consider ceasing psychological therapy after another 12 visits.[98]
[98] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T20.
In response to a question as to whether the applicant may be exaggerating his symptoms or displaying inconsistencies with the reported symptoms of his condition, Dr Lovell stated ‘there was no suggestion that he was voluntarily exaggerating his symptoms or displaying inconsistent findings’.[99]
[99] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T20, page 165.
Rehabilitation Report dated 16 October 2017
A further report was provided by Ms Whitelaw on 16 October 2017.[100] Ms Whitelaw stated that the applicant had advised her he had notified the Department that he was unable to return to work as a result of him still experiencing psychological symptoms.[101] The starting date of the applicant’s return-to-work program was delayed until 11 September 2017. The applicant later reported poor health due to the stress he felt about undertaking a medical review, external stressors largely of a financial nature, and ill health physically.[102]
[100] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T21.
[101] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T21.
[102] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T21.
Rehabilitation Report dated 12 December 2017
Another report by Ms Whitelaw was provided on 12 December 2017 which advised the applicant had returned to work on a return-to-work program which commenced on
[103] Exhibit C, ST-Documents, ST1.
[104] Exhibit C, ST-Documents, ST1.
[105] Exhibit C, ST-Documents, ST1.
1 November 2017.[103] The applicant reported this program consisted of working six-and-a-half hours per day, three days a week.[104] Ms Whitelaw opined that the applicant would be capable of returning to full-time APS3 hours in two months.[105]
The applicant reported to Ms Whitelaw that he had again faced challenges in regard to attendance at work, in accordance with the graduated return-to-work programme.[106] The applicant reported that he was absent from work for the period of 13 November 2017 through to 10 December 2017, owing to poor health resulting from changes to his medication.[107]
[106] Exhibit C, ST-Documents, ST1.
[107] Exhibit C, ST-Documents, ST1.
The report recommended the applicant continue to engage in treatment with his treating psychologist, Ms van de Torre and for him to continue with fortnightly medical reviews with Dr de Vries.[108]
[108] Exhibit C, ST-Documents, ST1.
Rehabilitation Report dated 27 February 2018
A further report by Ms Whitelaw was completed on 27 February 2018.[109] Ms Whitelaw reported that the applicant was to commence a graduated return-to-work programme with a commencement date of 12 December 2018.[110]
[109] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T24.
[110] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T24.
The applicant reported being absent from work from 8 January 2018 until 23 February 2018, owing to both poor physical health and a decline in his psychological condition of PTSD.[111] On 10 January 2018, the graduated return-to-work programme was amended to commence on 15 January to reflect the recommendation of the applicant’s treating GP Dr de Vries.[112] However, due to the applicant’s absences the programme was further amended such that it commenced on 23 February 2018.[113] From this date, the applicant was to return to work at seven-and-a-half hour days, four days per week.[114]
[111] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T24.
[112] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T24.
[113] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T24.
[114] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T24.
Rehabilitation Report dated 18 April 2018
A further report on the applicant’s rehabilitation by Ms Whitelaw outlined that the applicant had been absent from work since 8 January 2018 as a result of further poor health, potentially contributed to, to some extent, by medications.[115] The report recommended the applicant return to work on a modified return-to-work programme from 23 April 2018.[116]
[115] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T25.
[116] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T25.
Rehabilitation Report dated 11 July 2018
A further report by Ms Whitelaw reported that the applicant was certified to participate in a graduated return to work programme from 28 May 2018.[117] However, on 1 June 2018, the applicant advised his employer that he would be unable to return to work due to panic attacks prior to attending work.[118] The applicant reported that this was contributed to by personal and external stressors which had not resolved. The applicant was certified as unfit until 20 July 2017.[119]
[117] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T26.
[118] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T26.
[119] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T26.
Report of Dr Isailovic dated 27 August 2018
On 6 August 2018, the respondent wrote to Dr Isailovic to request an examination of the applicant to assist in assessing the applicant’s claim for compensation.[120] Dr Isailovic examined the applicant on 13 August 2018 and provided a report to the respondent dated 27 August 2018.[121]
[120] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T27.
[121] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
Dr Isailovic outlined the history of the applicant’s ‘presenting complaint’, outlining a history consistent with that disclosed by the applicant to medical and other professionals outlined above.[122] In particular, the applicant reported that it was not until he was required to undertake a training course on the topic, that he realised he was experiencing the symptoms of psychological trauma.[123] The applicant further explained that he had first seen a psychologist in 2015 who diagnosed him with PTSD, a diagnosis with which the applicant’s GP concurred.[124] The applicant further remarked that he has been attending psychological sessions with Ms van de Torre since 2017, prior to which he stated he saw a different psychologist but could not recall their name.[125]
[122] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[123] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[124] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[125] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
Dr Isailovic outlined the applicant’s treatment history and noted that detailed notes from the applicant’s GP prior to 2014 were not made available to her.[126] Dr Isailovic further noted that there is no clinical record of the applicant suffering panic attacks until September of 2016 and that the possibility of a PTSD diagnosis was raised was on 24 March 2015.[127] Dr Isailovic further outlined that the applicant was largely treated for his MDD and IBS conditions prior to this diagnosis of PTSD.[128] This treatment included therapy and medications for his psychological conditions and his physical conditions (chronic asthma, IBS and history of viral infections).[129] Dr Isailovic further outlined that the applicant had been recently referred to a psychiatrist and had seen Dr Sanjeev Ranjan on 2 August 2018.[130]
[126] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[127] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[128] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[129] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[130] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
The applicant outlined a gradual onset of symptoms to Dr Isailovic and stated that the impact of his conditions on his level of functioning fluctuates greatly, and environmental stressors are sometimes, but not always a cause of this.[131] The applicant further disclosed the history of his medical conditions, including the history of viral infections, IBS, hypothyroidism, and testosterone deficiency.[132]
[131] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[132] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
Dr Isailovic also noted the applicant’s history of absences due to poor physical health. With regard to this, Dr Isailovic remarked that the applicant has severe asthma, which is treated with steroids, which is a known trigger for depressive conditions.[133]
[133] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
With respect to the applicant’s mental state upon examination, Dr Isailovic remarked:
Mr Percival presented as an overweight man of pleasant demeanour, dressed in clean casual attire. His speech was spontaneous, fluent and grammatical. His sentences were logically connected and goal directed. He was able to follow conversation and provide elaborate history without requiring any prompts or clarifications. He had no abnormal thoughts such as delusions or suicidal ideas. There were no perceptual abnormalities such as hallucinations. His mood was euthymic at the time of the interview and his affect was reactive and of full range. There were no obvious judgement abnormalities. There were no observable cognitive deficits.[134]
[134] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28, page 205.
Dr Isailovic diagnosed the applicant with recurrent MDD with anxious distress and noted that he has been treated for depression since at least 2009.[135] Dr Isailovic was of the opinion the applicant’s MDD condition was pre-existing and unrelated to his employment duties.[136] Dr Isailovic further opined that although the applicant some of the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, he did not satisfy the full criteria required for a diagnosis.[137] Dr Isailovic remarked that when examining the clinical records, it is not clear on what basis the diagnosis of PTSD was made, noting a lack of a complete history.[138] Dr Isailovic noted that the history of the symptomology experienced by the applicant was inconsistent with what they would expect from someone suffering from PTSD.[139] Dr Isailovic further remarked that the clinical record does not demonstrate that hyperarousal symptoms, which are a requirement for a diagnosis of PTSD, were present until 2016.[140]
[135] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[136] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[137] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[138] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[139] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[140] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.

Dr Isailovic continued to opine that the applicant’s employment duties, in her opinion, did not qualify as a Criterion A exposure as required by the DSM-V.[141] Dr Isailovic stated that even if she accepted that the applicant’s exposure could be considered a Criterion A exposure, that the timeline of the applicant’s reported symptoms does not align with what she would expect for a diagnosis of PTSD.[142] With regard to a diagnosis of PTSD having been made, Dr Isailovic remarked:
I also could not find a clear history of how the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder was made. I found a number of independent medical reports that kept repeating the same diagnosis without tracing the origin of the complaints or examining the timeline of the symptoms development or even clarifying the diagnostic requirements.[143]
[141] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[142] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[143] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28, page 205.
Dr Isailovic further remarked:
The early clinical notes and independent reports provide compelling evidence against this diagnosis (see Documents review 1-4). The job description provided then does not match current reporting. There is no work-related distress reported before 2015. The modern literature argue that there is no such a thing as delayed onset posttraumatic stress disorder. The person may fall short of full diagnosis initially, but some symptoms and intrusive recollections would be expected. Mr Percival had repeated opportunities and has never reported them before. He did however report somatic complaints and depression – consistent with his diagnosis of Major Depression.
…
I am puzzled as to how the initial reports, which were quite accurate and consistent with respect to reporting depression, and consistent with the clinical files obtained from his general practitioner, suddenly became work related posttraumatic stress disorder from events that had never been mentioned before. I suspect that part of his symptomatology is iatrogenic, given that since the psychologist has diagnosed him with posttraumatic stress disorder, the treatment focus started evolving and Mr Percival felt obliged to continue reporting and possibly even experiencing some symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder.
As with any iatrogenic diagnosis, the symptoms are getting worse with treatment. The typical trajectory of posttraumatic stress disorder would be quite opposite to that. With the removal of stressors the symptoms tend to slowly improve and wean. It is extremely rare to have symptoms that last forever and it is almost impossible to have symptoms that are getting worse with removal of the exposure as time goes on. This diagnosis also serves a self-protective function, offering the interpretation of his mood states (fluctuating depression) that could be externalised and thus more acceptable to Mr Percival. It is much easier to attribute the negative moods to external factors, outside of his control, than to accept that he has major depression for which there may not be clear reason.
…
I do agree that Mr Percival does suffer from a chronic recurring condition, namely major depressive disorder, but the condition is not work related. … His current predicament is also one of avoidance and deconditioning. Avoidance of getting engaged in work activities and other activities is likely to create an avoidance loop, so Mr Percival is having less stress tolerance due to lack of exposure. From a psychological point of view he would actually benefit from starting gradual exposure to some stress and building tolerance. A return to work would likely improve his mood and increase his sense of competence.[144]
[144] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28, pages 207-209.
When asked whether the applicant continues to suffer from PTSD, Dr Isailovic responded:
In my opinion Mr Percival has never fulfilled criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder. If you look at my diagnostic clarification, the timeline does not match, there are incomplete criteria and he does not fulfil DSM-5 criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder. I am fully aware that different psychiatrists have reported DSM-5 diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder, but none of them has gone through the actual list of symptoms to specify the diagnosis. The diagnosis was mostly made on the basis of self-reported criterion B, intrusive recollections which, if we actually look at the timeline, started occurring more than five years after the alleged exposure to the traumatic cyber material was completed.
In my opinion Mr Percival has chronic recurrent major depressive disorder with possibly anxious distress, which is a pre-existing and non-work related condition and he has suffered from it likely since his late 20s or early 30s, when he started complaining of a variety of psychosomatic symptoms. It is very likely that his diagnosis of Ross River fever and Barmah Forest virus have masked the underlying depression or triggered it. His condition is chronic and recurrent. At the time of the examination he did not have significant symptoms of an active depressive condition. I would consider that he was in remission.[145]
[145] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28, page 211.
With respect to the reasoning behind the applicant’s repeated unsuccessful return-to-work engagements, Dr Isailovic remarked that:
In my opinion Mr Percival did not sustain a successful return to work due to a combination of factors. The main factor is avoidance and deconditioning. Mr Percival’s presentation is with anxious distress. Once he obtained a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder and started receiving compensation, there was no financial motivation to return to work. Naturally, due to anxiety he was choosing the path of least resistance, that is to avoid stressful situations and spend more time in situations where he feels safe and in control. [146]
[146] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28, page 214.
Dr Isailovic concluded her report by stating that the applicant would be capable of returning to work within his APS3 duties, outside of his role conducting Reg4A examinations.[147] Dr Isailovic further remarked that an increase in alcohol intake by the applicant would have a negative impact upon his recovery and rehabilitation efforts but stated they did not have available to them a history which demonstrated excessive drinking.[148]
[147] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
[148] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28.
Report of Dr Ranjan dated 26 September 2018
On 11 September 2018, the respondent wrote to Dr Ranjan and sought an independent report on the applicant’s condition.[149] In response, Dr Ranjan provided a report dated 26 September 2018.[150] Dr Ranjan outlined the history disclosed by the applicant, which was consistent with the history provided on previous occasions.[151] Dr Ranjan further stated that he has been treating the applicant since 2 August 2018.
[149] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T30.
[150] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T31.
[151] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T31.
In relation to a specific diagnosis, Dr Ranjan was of the opinion that the applicant met the criteria for PTSD and remarked:
I would like to state that I do not agree with Dr Isailovic's diagnostic impression. Her report appears to have several ‘assumptions’ (including ‘iatrogenic diagnosis’) despite previous reports suggesting a diagnosis of PTSD. We must recognise that DSM-IV TR has been replaced by DSM- 5 and all diagnosis for psychiatric conditions should be based on current diagnostic criteria rather than historical diagnostic criteria.
Even when we refer to DSM-IV TR diagnostic criteria for PTSD, it can be argued reasonably well that [the applicant] suffers from PTSD.[152]
[152] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T31, page 225.
Dr Ranjan further remarked that the applicant had displayed an improvement in response to an increase in his anti-depressant medication and that his mood had improved, he was sleeping better, and his anxiety was well controlled.[153]
[153] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T31.
With respect to the reason(s) behind the applicant’s unsuccessful attempts to return to work, Dr Ranjan opined:
It is my impression that Mr Percival has suffered from distressing and overwhelming symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in the context of his work. His return to work has often led to significant worsening of his anxiety which has led him to feel overwhelmed. There is a likelihood that his anxiety has been fuelled by excessive consumption of alcohol.[154]
[154] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T31, page 227.
Dr Ranjan recommended that the applicant cut down on his alcohol intake as well as continue with his present medication regime and undergoing trauma focussed CBT.[155]

Dr Ranjan further recommended for the applicant to return to work in a graduated manner, but not with variable shift work as this was detrimental to his sleep cycle which impacts upon his psychological conditions.[156] Dr Ranjan concluded the report by stating he had attempted to contact the applicant’s return-to-work manager, but had not heard back at the time of writing his report.[157]
[155] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T31.
[156] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T31.
[157] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T31.
Correspondence of Dr de Vries dated 26 September 2018
On 26 September 2018, Dr de Vries wrote to the respondent, stating that they disagreed with the assessment of Dr Isailovic that the applicant does not suffer from PTSD.[158]

Dr de Vries outlines that her opinion that the applicant suffers from PTSD is supported by both his treating psychiatrist, Dr Ranjan, and the applicant’s psychologist, Ms van de Torre, as well as previous independent assessments.[159]
[158] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T32.
[159] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T32.
Dr de Vries outlined a similar explanation to that of Dr Ranjan in relation to the applicant’s unsuccessful return-to-work attempts.[160] Dr de Vries further outlined the treatment provided thus far and the improvements and setbacks experienced by the applicant in relation to his condition of PTSD.[161]
[160] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T32.
[161] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T32.
Report of Dr Isailovic dated 17 October 2018
On 10 October 2018, the respondent wrote to Dr Isailovic requesting a supplementary report.[162] Dr Isailovic provided a supplementary report dated 17 October 2018 in response.[163] Dr Isailovic was asked by the respondent to provide comment on the statements made by the applicant’s treating practitioners.[164] In response, Dr Isailovic remarked that:
… both treating practitioners acted as an advocate for their patient, as is their right. Furthermore, Dr Ranjan quoted DSM-IV-TR criteria well known to every psychiatrist. Unfortunately, it takes more than people reporting symptoms for a diagnosis. The criteria are freely available online and accessible to anybody. That is why psychiatrists spend 5 years of training developing an expertise in interpreting the criteria in the way that clinically make sense and reflect contemporary knowledge of aetiology, pathogenesis, illness trajectory and treatment response.
I have never argued that Mr Percival does not report the symptoms. What is important in making the diagnosis is that it is supposed to make sense. In Mr Percival’s case the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder does not make sense. Every single textbook would support that there is no such thing as delayed onset of posttraumatic stress disorder. Mr Percival had completed exposure to abhorrent images by 2010. From 2010 he had a number of independent medical examinations and has seen his treating doctors. Neither his clinical notes nor the previous independent medical examiners reported difficulties with his previous employment position or exposure to abhorrent images, intrusive recollections, flashbacks, nightmares, preoccupation with images, startle response, hyperarousal or other symptoms that would allude towards posttraumatic stress disorder. He was even specifically asked about his work by occupational physicians. It was only when he was referred to a psychologist in 2015 that the unpleasant experience became evident and suddenly important.
I would not have an issue with the diagnosis had the symptoms been reported at least since 2010, upon leaving work or during work. However, there is a significant gap between the alleged exposure and reporting of the symptoms.
The textbook by Kaplan and Sadock (extract included - see the last paragraph) on the course and prognosis of posttraumatic stress disorder says: “A recent review of studies concerning delayed onset PTSD confirms that symptom onset is almost never delayed.” To claim that [the applicant] had sub-syndromal posttraumatic stress disorder would be a stretch. For five years after leaving the place where the alleged exposure occurred he did not make any reference to either posttraumatic symptoms or to the place or the memories. These were mentioned neither in independent examinations nor in clinical files.[165]
[162] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T34.
[163] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T35.
[164] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T35.
[165] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T35, pages 235-236.
Dr Isailovic further remarked that the applicant’s response to treatment and his development of symptoms does not make sense from a clinical perspective, nothing that the applicant’s symptoms have reportedly gotten worse with treatment, not better.[166] Dr Isailovic remarked that this is the opposite of what she would expect, and has seen when treating patients with PTSD, stating that the trajectory of her other patients and that of the applicant do not accord.[167] Dr Isailovic concluded her report by stating that her opinion remain unchanged.[168]
[166] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T35.
[167] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T35.
[168] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T35.
ORAMS Closure Report dated 11 February 2019
On 11 February 2019, an ORAMS Closure Report was generated as a result of the applicant having returned to fulltime hours of 37.5 hours per week and the applicant’s condition now being considered as non-compensable. This is as a result of the decision of a delegate of the respondent preferring the evidence of Dr Isailovic over the applicant’s treating practitioners and determining that there existed no present liability for the respondent in relation to the applicant’s condition.[169]
[169] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T41.
The applicant’s supervisor reported that the applicant was highly competent when completing the duties of his role. The applicant’s supervisor also noted that the applicant has engaged in some higher duties work recently and has been happy to take on the additional responsibility.[170] At the time of the closure, the applicant was reportedly undertaking full-time work at the Department and has the support of both his GP and treating psychiatrist to undertake this level of work.[171]
[170] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T41.
[171] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T41.
Report of Dr Isailovic dated 7 February 2020
At the request of the respondent, Dr Isailovic provided a further supplementary report dated 7 February 2020.[172] The applicant’s objections to the findings and opinions of Dr Isailovic were provided to the Doctor. Dr Isailovic did not resile from her positions and maintained her opinion that the applicant does not suffer from PTSD due to the applicant’s clinical history over time not matching the clinical chronology she would expect to see in somebody with PTSD.[173]
[172] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R2.
[173] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R2.
Dr Isailovic remarked that most symptoms of PTSD appear and persist within the first six months from the time of exposure to the traumatic material.[174] Dr Isailovic further remarked that these symptoms would be easily identifiable throughout the applicant’s clinical history.[175] Dr Isailovic commented on the chronology of the applicant’s symptoms, stating that usually, symptoms of PTSD do not fluctuate in such a way that they appear to in the applicant’s circumstances. Dr Isailovic further remarked that the applicant’s condition appeared to be deteriorating without a specific trigger, despite undergoing psychological intervention. Dr Isailovic stated that this pattern does not emerge in PTSD sufferers.[176]
[174] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R2.
[175] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R2.
[176] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R2.
With respect to the diagnosis of MDD, Dr Isailovic maintained her position that the applicant suffers from MDD, which is a non-compensable condition. Dr Isailovic also noted the applicant’s complex and extensive medical history which she attributes as a contributor to the applicant’s MDD condition.[177] Dr Isailovic opined that the MDD condition of the applicant is not work-related, but alludes to adjustments being potentially necessary, noting that the applicant would likely be affected by his MDD condition for life.[178]
[177] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R2.
[178] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R2.
Report of Ms van der Torre dated 2 September 2020
Ms van der Torre provided a report at the request of the applicant dated 2 September 2020.[179] Ms van der Torre confirmed that the applicant had engaged in treatment sessions with her over a period of three to four years.[180] Ms van der Torre explained that she is unable to provide an exact start date of when she began treating the applicant, as this occurred at a former clinic and that the records were not available to her.[181]
[179] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A1.
[180] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A1.
[181] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A1.
Ms van der Torre outlined the applicant’s reported symptoms, as well as her clinical opinion, based on these reports, that the applicant meets the criteria for PTSD as set-out in the DSM-V.[182] Ms van der Torre further remarked that due to the disclosures made to her regarding the extend of the applicant’s duties when conducting Reg4A examinations, and the symptoms reported by the applicant, that it is clear to her that there exists a link between the applicant’s condition of PTSD and his employment.[183]
[182] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A1.
[183] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A1.
Report of Dr Ki Douglas dated 6 October 2020
An extensive report by Dr Douglas, consultant occupational physician, dated 6 October 2020 was provided to the Department to assess any limitations on the applicant’s capacities.[184] In this regard, Dr Douglas remarked:
From a physical point of view, [the applicant] noted that he has no concerns. He feels well. His asthma is under control, although I note that he needed Ventolin this morning. He does get occasional neck pain, sometimes it occurs at work. He has also had his lower back seize up but this has not happened for a couple of years. His sleep is disturbed. He finds it hard to get off to sleep, but this is not due to any physical illness. He has no early morning wakening.
Self-reported tolerances are no restrictions in sitting or standing. He can walk for 20 minutes which he usually does on a weekend or after work, taking his German shepherd/English mastiff cross dog. He does avoid walking in cold weather to avoid triggering his asthma. He has no restrictions in bending. He does not get short of breath lying flat. He can lift 20 to 30 kg being drums of water, as he likes home brewing.
[The applicant] completed a RAPID3 Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data questionnaire which is an overall assessment of physical function. His score was 4.2 which is indicative of low severity impact of all his health conditions combined. He has 0/10 pain and he rates his health as 3.5, where 0 is feeling very well and 10 is feeling very poorly. This rating is more in relation to his mental health rather than any physical health issues.
[The applicant] also completed an Epworth Sleepiness Scale. His score was 2 which is within the normal range.[185]
[184] Exhibit G, Report of Dr Ki Douglas.
[185] Exhibit G, Report of Dr Ki Douglas, page 5.
Dr Douglas remarked that the applicant’s prognosis was such that the applicant’s asthma condition may be exacerbated by respiratory tract infections, noting that the applicant would likely be required to be absent from work during these instances and he would be infectious.[186] Dr Douglas further remarked that based on the evidence available to him and the opinions of other medical professionals made available to him, stated that the applicant faces no impact on work capacity from either his MDD or his physical health.[187] However, Dr Douglas did note that due to the applicant’s susceptibility to respiratory tract infections due to his asthma, and noting the COVID-19 pandemic, stated that the applicant would likely require extended and recurrent absenteeism as a result.[188]
[186] Exhibit G, Report of Dr Ki Douglas.
[187] Exhibit G, Report of Dr Ki Douglas.
[188] Exhibit G, Report of Dr Ki Douglas.
Report of Dr Luke Murphy dated 7 October 2020

Dr Murphy examined the applicant on 30 September 2020 and completed a report dated
[189] Exhibit H, Report of Dr Luke Murphy.
[190] Exhibit H, Report of Dr Luke Murphy.
7 October 2020.[189] The applicant’s history was outlined, consistent with the above histories provided. The applicant disclosed that he had taken extensive amounts of mental health leave during January and March of 2020. The applicant stated that the main stressor at this time was his appeal in this matter. However, the applicant explained that his psychologist had provided him with several strategies to assist in his management of his case in this matter. The applicant reported to Dr Murphy that these strategies were helpful and that he was coping well.[190]
In relation to the applicant’s current diagnosis, Dr Murphy further opined:
I have no reason to override the advice given by experts who saw Mr Percival over the past ten years or so. He has been variously diagnosed with major depressive disorder and post traumatic stress disorder.
On today’s presentation, Mr Percival’s mental health is reasonably good and he does not meet the full DSM 5 criteria for any diagnosis.[191]
[191] Exhibit H, Report of Dr Luke Murphy, page 8.
Dr Murphy further remarked that the applicant did not require any additional treatment, and that he was fully compliant with his current treatment regime. Dr Murphy did not recommend any changes to this treatment, noting the noticeable improvement in the applicant’s reporting of his condition(s).[192]
[192] Exhibit H, Report of Dr Luke Murphy
With regard to the applicant’s condition of PTSD being attributed to his extended absences, Dr Murphy stated:
I prefer a diagnosis of major depressive disorder over post traumatic stress disorder. The major depressive disorder is currently in remission. He is well managed and in remission.[193]
[193] Exhibit H, Report of Dr Luke Murphy, page 10.
In response to a question of whether he had any further recommendations to assist in the management of the applicant’s conditions, Dr Murphy remarked:
Mr Percival likes his job and appears to be coping well now that his mental health has improved. The main issue would be to identify future relapses. As discussed above, if there are any significant concerns, it would be best to send him home until he can provide documentation from his treating GP and psychologist saying that he is fit to return to work.[194]
[194] Exhibit H, Report of Dr Luke Murphy, page 13.
Oral evidence of Dr Isailovic – 13 September 2021
Dr Isailovic appeared before the Tribunal on 13 September 2021, via MS Teams, and gave evidence under affirmation.[195] During the respondent’s examination of Dr Isailovic, Dr Isailovic stated:[196]
[195] Transcript, page 17.
[196] Transcript, pages 17-
·She is a member of Forensic Psychiatry though the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists.
·She did not wish to make any changes to the reports that she had prepared for these proceedings, with the exception of minor grammatical corrections.
·That the applicant met the exposure criteria under DSM-V but not DSM-IV but that the outward expression and reporting of symptoms associated with PTSD were not reported for 5 years which does not match the expected trajectory of a PTSD condition.
·That the applicant presents with:
textbook perfect trajectory for major depressive disorder occurring on the background of hypothyroidism, hypogonadism, two conditions strongly associated with major depressive disorder.[197]
·That “all’ the literature states that there is no such thing as delayed course.
·That her main concerns with and reluctance to provide a diagnosis of PTSD is that the applicant’s clinical notes do not indicate that at that time he was suffering from symptoms of PTSD.
·She has extensive experience working with first responders and law enforcements officers who have experienced PTSD as a result of their repeated exposure to abhorrent material.
·That the applicant’s experience with his claimed condition of PTSD does not match what she would expect from that of someone in the applicant’s position suffering from PTSD.
[197] Transcript, page 18.
Under cross examination by the applicant, Dr Isailovic stated:
·That even if the applicant had repeated exposure beyond 2010, that this exposure would likely not have been significant enough to explain any relapse or regression in his progress. Upon further questioning Dr Isailovic conceded that it is possible that the applicant was exposed to further triggers, but that those symptoms were not present for the five years prior, and they were not. Dr Isailovic contended that as a result, the applicant’s condition could not be diagnosed as PTSD.
·That if she could find anything in the applicant’s file that would meet the minimum requirements, she would have provided the applicant with a diagnosis of PTSD.
·That she believes the practitioners who found the applicant to have PTSD were too narrowly focussing on one aspect, noting in particular the tendency of psychologists to do this.
·In response to a question from the applicant that asked about Dr Isailovic’s comments that it takes more than just reporting symptoms for a diagnosis to be made, and that this is why psychiatrists and psychologists study for many years, because anybody can look up the symptoms online:
I don’t say that they are not educated. I just do not know whether they have actually examined the clinical notes. So sometimes – like, I do that all the time when I’m examining people for WorkCover, for example, who doesn’t send me any clinical notes. They just send me the worker with couple of reports. And I diagnose it on the basis of reported symptoms and then I have to backtrack my diagnosis because I have the clinical files that are inconsistent. So that happens in practice. I am not sure that this exactly the case, but I think these doctors could stand in front of the Tribunal and explain their view on the trajectory and whether they had the clinical notes and whether they examined that there were no symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder reported…[198]
[198] Transcript, page 23.
·When asked about her report dated 7 February 2020, which claimed there were unusual and inconsistent clinical notes:
When people have certified incapacity off work due to depression and mental symptomatology, that’s incompatible of owing the weapon. That is like the first thing we say. Well, you can’t really have a weapon, because you’re at risk to yourself and to others because you’re incapacitated to work because you have these depression and mental symptoms. And then, you know, one presentation one week later, like, ‘I’m actually (indistinct) for that’ – it’s kind of inconsistent.[199]
·When questioned further on the reason for his incapacity to work, and when it was put to her that this absence as a result of modifications needing to have been made to his work area that had not been completed, that she did not have access to the reason, just that he was certified as incapacitated for work, and that it may not be inconsistent dependent upon the reason for absence.
·Explained to the applicant and the Tribunal the difference between delayed expression and delayed onset.
·Disagreed that the applicant’s clinical records demonstrate a history of subsyndromal symptomology.
·That most people recover from PTSD, noting that MDD is a much more disabling disorder than PTSD.
·Confirmed that people can have both MDD and PTSD.
[199] Transcript, page 26.
Applicant’s Contentions
The applicant has made numerous contentions in his comprehensive statement of facts, issues and contentions dated 4 December 2020 and his undated statement filed with the Tribunal on 10 September 2020, as well as orally at Hearing.[200]
[200] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2-A3.
Undated Statement of the Applicant
In his undated statement, the applicant contends that he is able to differentiate the affects and symptoms of PTSD from that of his other conditions.[201] The applicant further refers to the opinions of his treatment providers that he does continue to suffer PTSD and that this PTSD was significantly contributed to by his employment with the Department.[202] The applicant has further provided apparent extracts from the Beyond Blue website with the stated aim of “giving the reader [of the submission] an understanding of [the applicant’s] life since performing the duties that resulted in [his] injury”.[203]
[201] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
[202] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
[203] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
The applicant outlined a history consistent with the history that he has provided to the medical professionals engaged to undertake assessments of him, as outlined above. The applicant further elaborated that his duties sometimes required him to document the content of the objectionable material, in detail.[204] The applicant further remarked that this can be a laborious task, as he was sometimes required to repeatedly go over the same objectionable material and transcribe the contents or events of the objectionable material being examined.[205] The applicant reiterated that he had undertaken this task for four years, often being the only Officer who was certified to undertake that work.[206]
[204] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
[205] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
[206] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
The applicant further explains the affects on his day-to-day life that his condition of PTSD has.[207] The applicant has outlined in great detail how he relives the traumatic images and media he was exposed to during his role conducting Reg4A Examinations, as well as how the applicant’s life and functioning is impacted by the symptoms of PTSD listed on the Beyond Blue website.[208]
[207] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
[208] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
The applicant addresses the comorbid nature of his claimed MDD and PTSD conditions.[209] The applicant characterises Dr Isailovic’s opinion as being that MDD, and PTSD are mutually exclusive.[210] The applicant states that the interrelationship between MDD and PTSD are well-documented and states that on the balance of probabilities, he is able to determine whether his symptoms relate to his compensable PTSD condition, or his non-compensable MDD condition.[211]
[209] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
[210] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
[211] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
The applicant further contends that his diagnosis of PTSD has been confirmed by three independent medical examinations, two treating doctors, and two treating psychologists are all in agreement that:
·His injury is PTSD;
·His injury is significant and in all likelihood he will be dealing with his condition of PTSD in one way or another for the rest of his life;
·His injury has persisted for some time; and
·His injury was caused by his work duties, specifically, the reviewing of objectionable material.
The applicant further remarked that during periods of illness that was unrelated to his PTSD, that he did not seek for that time off to be compensated by the respondent and used the leave arrangements available to him during these periods.[212] The applicant cites the example of the death of two family members.
[212] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
The applicant further remarked that he is well aware of his multiple health issues and is capable of discerning which condition his presenting symptoms stem from.[213] The applicant states that this is an ‘easy’ task for him.[214]
[213] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
[214] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
The applicant further contended that the Tribunal should prefer the evidence of his treating practitioners over that of Dr Isailovic.[215] The applicant references the level of familiarity with him that his treatment providers have, and the perceived lack of familiarity of Dr Isailovic.[216]
[215] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
[216] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A2.
Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions
The applicant has provided a comprehensive statement of facts, issues and contentions dated 4 December 2020.[217] In this submission, the applicant contends that he meets the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD, and that the condition is and will continue to be ongoing and will be long-term, if not lifelong.[218]
[217] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
[218] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
In relation to the report of Dr Isailovic, the applicant stated:
I contest that the opinion provided by Dr Aleksandra Isailovic is based on incorrect, insufficient information and or, on her assumptions, not based on fact. In turn, the Respondent’s reliance on this opinion to determine liability prevents natural justice to occur.
I contest that this flawed report was again, significantly relied upon by the Reconsideration’s Officer at the time of reviewing the decision to determine continued liability for the condition of PTSD.[219]
[219] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3, pages 20-21.
The applicant reiterates that they rely upon the reports of the previous independent medical examinations, and the opinions of his treatment providers to support his contention that a diagnosis of PTSD is appropriate.[220]
[220] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
The applicant further contends that should the Tribunal find that he suffered PTSD in the past, and that, that PTSD was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment with the Department, that the Tribunal must find that there is also a present liability under sections 16 and 19 of the SRC Act.[221]
[221] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
Applicant contends he is not undertaking the preinjury duties despite being employed at the same level (APS3). Correspondence from his manager confirms that the tasks the applicant is undertaking are that of an APS2 role, despite him being gainfully employed as an APS3. In support of this contention, the applicant makes reference to section 38AA documents.[222] The applicant further contends that per the ORAMS Closure Report (discussed above), submitted on 12 September 2018, also states that the substantive work being undertaken in the role the applicant occupies is that of an APS2.[223] The applicant further contends:
It is my contention, that as I am not performing any, pre-injury duties and the role being performed by me is that of an Officer below by substantive ranking. I still meet the definition of Incapacity for work as defined in s 4 of the SRC Act.[224]
[222] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
[223] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
[224] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3, page 22.
The applicant further contends that the Tribunal should not prefer the evidence and reports of Dr Isailovic. The applicant outlines a number of ‘inconsistencies or errors’ within Dr Isailovic’s report.[225] In particular, the applicant remarked:
[225] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
Dr Isailovic has repeatedly stated that in her opinion, time lines or event or reporting of symptoms were inconsistent with the diagnosis and more in line with MDD. Modern literature does not support delayed onset PTSD. While subsyndromal PTSD (meaning that not all DSM criteria were initially met) may cause a delay in the diagnosis.
Dr Isailovic states she wouldn’t have a problem with the diagnosis of PTSD if symptoms were reported at the time of exposure or subsequently.
I performed the role of reviewing objectional material between the years of 2006 and 2010. It was in 2009 that I completed the review of the large importation of rape and torture documented extensively in clinical notes and reports.
The first reporting of any psychological symptoms by me, was in 2009. This is exactly what Dr Isailovic claims that symptoms would start to occur/develop for PTSD.
…
Dr Isailovic lists in her own reports examples of me reporting symptoms within the time periods she specifies. [Referencing examples from the supplementary reports dated 27 August 2018 and 7 February 2020 of Dr Isailovic].
Dr Isailovic also claims in error, that I no longer had exposure to abhorrent material, to explain a worsening or ‘flare up’ of PTSD symptoms since exposure ceased in 2010. I stopped performing “the review of objectional material” in 2010. This doesn’t mean there was no exposure.
…
Until 2018 … I was tasked with searching for prohibited imports and dealing with persons of interest that entered into Australia.
Sometimes these importations and importers involved “objectionable material”. While I no longer conducted in depth viewing of this material. I was still responsible for stopping it at the Australian Border. So my exposure time frame continued well beyond what Dr Isailovic believes.[226]
[226] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3, pages 23-24.
The applicant further contends that Dr Isailovic has not demonstrated a clear understanding of the requirements of his role, and points to examples where the applicant believes

Dr Isailovic has mischaracterised his work.[227]
[227] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
The applicant further takes issue with Dr Isailovic remarking on a “miraculous improvement a week later” when referring to the applicant being found unsuitable for work in 2018 and later seeking a weapons license.[228] The applicant contends this is a mischaracterisation and the “miraculous improvement” was in fact after months of treatment.[229]
[228] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
[229] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
The applicant has also objected to the reference to financial motivation in Dr Isailovic’s report dated 27 August 2018, stating that he was diagnosed in 2015, however, did not submit any documentation for compensation for another eighteen months. The applicant states that if his motivation was financial in nature, that he would not have waited almost two years to submit the necessary documentation to receive compensation.[230]
[230] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
The applicant has also raised several objections to the reconsideration decision.[231] As my role is to consider all the evidence before me, and to determine this matter in a de novo fashion, I do not consider it necessary to delve into these contentions. Neither the state of mind, nor the weighting of considerations of the reconsideration officer is a relevant consideration for my purposes in determining this matter.
[231] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
The applicant seeks a decision pursuant to s 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) that the reviewable decisions dated 15 March 2019 be set aside and replaced.[232] I note the applicant did not state what decision they sought in substitution.
[232] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, A3.
Applicant’s Contentions and Evidence at Hearing
The applicant appeared at the Hearing by MS Teams, held on 13 September 2021, was self-represented and gave evidence under affirmation.[233] The applicant, in his opening statement, sought to rely on his written submissions.[234]
[233] Transcript, page 6.
[234] Transcript, page 6.
The applicant further contended that the Tribunal should place limited weight on reports by non-psychological professionals, at a time that he was being assisted in his recovery from viral infections. The applicant’s stated argument for this is that from his perspective, they were there to deal with physical symptoms and issues, not psychological symptoms.[235] The applicant further contended:
… on some of those periods … I myself wasn’t aware that I was experiencing issues. … has pointed out my symptomology ebbs and flows. So it does resolve or improves to the point where I’m able to cope, but then it also deteriorates if there’s additional stressors that come along.[236]
[235] Transcript, page 11-12.
[236] Transcript, page 11.

Under cross-examination, the applicant:[237]
·Confirmed that he is employed at the APS3 level, working as an Operational Support Officer out of the Brisbane Airport.
·Agreed that his role involved fleet management of vehicles, including servicing, repairs, ordering equipment and maintaining stationary supplies within his office.
·Contended that despite returning to work at an APS3 level, that he is not performing the same duties as when he was conducting Reg4A Examinations.
·Confirmed that he is not engaging in review of objectionable material.
·Confirmed that he did not raise the issues of his psychological symptoms during his performance reviews.
·Confirmed that he did not report the PTSD symptoms to the rehabilitation providers engaged by the Department to assist in his work attendance.
·Confirmed that his statement in November 2012, that his depressive episode appeared to have resolved was true and correct.
·Stated that he was truthful with Dr Murphy during his assessment and agreed that it is important to communicate to doctors an accurate history of symptoms and accurately reflecting the present symptoms.
[237] Transcript, page 7-10
Respondent’s Contentions
The respondent has made a number of contentions and alternative contentions in this matter.[238] The respondent seeks a decision which affirms the reviewable decisions dated 15 March 2019 be affirmed, pursuant to section 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).[239]
[238] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R3.
[239] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R3.
The respondent contends that the applicant was incorrectly diagnosed as suffering from PTSD.[240] Further, the respondent contends that the condition which the applicant suffered was MDD. Liability for MDD has not been accepted. In this regard, the respondent relies primarily on the reports of Dr Isailovic who, as discussed above, has opined that the applicant does not, and did not, suffer from PTSD.
[240] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R3.
The respondent further contends that the applicant’s MDD was not contributed to (or aggravated by), to a significant degree, by the applicant’s employment as required by s 5B of the SRC Act.[241] Therefore, the respondent contends the applicant’s condition of MDD is not compensable. The respondent additionally contends that the applicant’s condition of MDD was in remission by 13 August 2018 at the latest.
[241] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R3; Respondent’s outline of submissions.
It is a further contention of the respondent that it is not liable for payment of treatment expenses under s16 of the SRC Act nor for incapacity payments under s 19 of the SRC Act. The respondent contends this is the case because the applicant does not suffer an ‘ailment’ that was contributed to a significant degree by his employment with the Department, as required by s 5B of the SRC Act. These contentions of the respondent rely primarily upon the reports of Dr Isailovic.[242]
[242] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R3.
The respondent has outlined a further contention in the alternative, which is that if the Tribunal finds that the applicant did suffer from PTSD, which was contributed to a significant degree by his employment with the Department, that the applicant’s PTSD was resolved by June 2015 and the respondent is therefore not liable to provide compensation or payment for treatment under s 16 or incapacity under s 19 of the SRC Act. The respondent relies upon the clinical notes of Ms Muriel Cole to support this contention.
The respondent outlines a further alternative argument which deals with the scenario in which the Tribunal finds that the applicant suffers from PTSD, which was contributed to a significant degree by his employment with the Department. The respondent contends there is no liability to pay compensation for treatment under s 16 or incapacity under s 19 of the SRC Act. I outline these contentions in detail below.
Treatment (s 16 of the SRC Act)
The respondent contends that any treatment proffered is in relation to his MDD and not his compensable condition of PTSD. The respondent stated that it relies on the clinical records of Dr de Vries and the reports of Dr Isailovic. In particular, the respondent relies upon the following:
(a) The Applicant has been prescribed anti-depressant medication for MDD since his diagnosis in July 2009 and prior to his diagnosis of PTSD on 24 March 2015 (summonsed records of Dr de Vries, Ningi Doctors);
(b) Dr Isailovic stated that it is extremely rare for symptoms of PTSD to last indefinitely and symptoms do not get worse with time once the stressor has been removed;
(c) Dr Isailovic opined the Applicant’s symptoms did not improve, but got worse following his PTSD diagnosis and psychological therapy focused on treating PTSD;
(d) Dr Isailovic opined that the Applicant may require treatment in the form of antidepressant medication and psychological therapy for the management and monitoring of his chronic non-compensable MDD.[243]
Incapacity for work (s 19 of the SRC Act)
[243] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R3, page 125.
The respondent contends that the applicant is not presently incapacitated for preinjury duties. The respondent primarily relies upon the fact that the applicant has returned to fulltime work at the same level as before his injury, this being an APS3 role.[244]
[244] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R3.
The respondent contends that the requirements of section 4(9)(b) of the SRC Act do not require the applicant to be able to perform each and every pre-injury duty.[245] To this effect, the respondent relies upon Prica and Comcare,[246] Smith and Comcare[247] and Moon and Telstra Corporation.[248]
[245] Exhibit A, Joint Hearing Bundle, R3.
[246] [1996] AATA 218.
[247] [2002] AATA 249.
[248] [2006] AATA 996.
Respondent’s Contentions at Hearing
At the Hearing held in this matter on 13 September 2021, the respondent advanced a further contention.[249] This contention of the respondent relies on the report of Dr Murphy (exhibit H), which was filed by the respondent on the morning of the Hearing.[250] The respondent advised the Tribunal that those documents had only been provided to the respondent’s solicitors that morning.[251] I advised the applicant of his right to seek an adjournment as to enable him to amend his submissions such that they encompassed these further reports, and if necessary, to arrange for the authors of the reports to be available for cross-examination.[252] The applicant declined to seek an adjournment, and advised of their intention to proceed with the hearing as scheduled.[253]
[249] Transcript, page 4.
[250] Exhibit H, Report of Dr Luke Murphy; Transcript, pages 2-5.
[251] Transcript, page 3.
[252] Transcript, pages 2-4.
[253] Transcript, pages 2-4.
The respondent put forward a further alternative contention, which is that as of 7 October 2020, the applicant’s condition had been resolved. Counsel for the respondent, Ms Slack, appropriately put this contention to the applicant, and agreed that should the applicant seek one, an adjournment would be appropriate.[254]
[254] Transcript, page 2-7.
CONSIDERATION
At the outset I would like to thank both the applicant and the respondent for their assistance in this complex matter.
The submission of the respondent is that there is no liability for medical expenses and incapacity under sections 16 and 19 of the SRC Act with effect from 24 January 2019.
I have read the considerable medical reports which are in evidence. This is a complex case as the applicant has been diagnosed with several conditions including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, IBS, MDD, PTSD, hypothyroidism, and has suffered from Ross River Fever symptoms. Dr Klug on 19 December 2016 opined that his condition was consistent with MDD and PTSD. The respondent in its statement of facts issues and contentions dated 14 October 2020 contends that the MDD condition of the applicant is non-compensable and that the MDD condition was not contributed to nor aggravated by the employment of the applicant. The applicant in response to this document in his comprehensive statement of facts issues and contentions dated 4 December 2020 does not take issue with the contention that the MDD condition of the applicant is non-compensable. The case of the applicant is based on his claim that he has a PTSD condition, which was contributed to significantly by his employment with the Department.
There is in evidence medical opinion that the applicant was fit to return to work by the end of 2016. Dr de Vries in their report dated 30 November 2016 considered that the applicant should be able to return to work in a few weeks. Dr Klug in his report dated 19 December 2016 considered that the applicant could return to pre-injury duties in January 2017.
The applicant returned to work in 2017. His return to work was interrupted by events such as financial stress because of payroll difficulties and the passing of two men in their 90s who were father figures to him. There were difficulties at work. He ceased work in July 2017. On 6 October 2017 Dr Lovell considered that the applicant could return to work within two months.
It is apparent that the contention of the respondent is not that the employment of the applicant did not make a substantial contribution to the PTSD condition of the applicant on the claimed date of injury of 22 April 2015 but that the applicant did not have a PTSD condition. There is a preponderance of opinion by psychiatrists and psychologists that the applicant had PTSD. That opinion was shared by some senior psychiatrists who were not called as witnesses before the Tribunal.
On 6 October 2017, Dr Lovell, a psychiatrist of some seniority, reported that the applicant has PTSD and was not willingly exaggerating his symptoms. I accept this contemporaneous assessment of Dr Lovell and place great weight on the report.
Throughout the material submitted in this matter, the applicant has received positive reports about his engagement at work and the quality of his work, when in attendance. I consider the applicant to have been open and honest throughout this process and do not consider that he was exaggerating his condition. I consider that the history provided by the applicant, over several years, to different medical professionals, was largely consistent, with only minor inconsistencies, of which, none raise alarm.
Based upon the medical evidence before me, there is little doubt in my mind that the applicant suffered from PTSD, which was contributed to a significant degree by his employment. It is not at all surprising to me that an individual viewing material of the kind the applicant was exposed to could develop PTSD. I acknowledge the opinion of Dr Isailovic, however, note that Dr Ranjan, in his report of 26 September 2018, who opined that the conclusions of Dr Isailovic are based on assumptions such as iatrogenic symptoms and diagnoses. I note that Dr Isailovic appears to rely on the absence of a documented clinical history of the applicant experiencing the symptoms of PTSD. In this regard, I accept the applicant’s submissions that it was not until several years later that he recognised he was suffering the symptoms of psychological trauma. In my view, this is not an unreasonable explanation, and is consistent with the contemporaneous reports of various mental health professionals. Furthermore, I note that the applicant provided a number of largely consistent histories to various medical professionals and reiterate Dr Lovell’s assessment that the applicant was not willingly exaggerating his symptoms.
I note the remarks of Dr Isailovic, in her report dated 27 August 2018, stated:
I also could not find a clear history of how the diagnosis of PTSD was made. I found a number of independent medical reports that kept repeating the same diagnosis without tracing the origin of the complaints, or examining the timeline of the symptoms development or even clarifying the diagnostic requirements.[255]
[255] Exhibit B, T-Documents, T28, page 205.
I consider that as the respondent has relied on the above remarks of Dr Isailovic, it would have assisted the Tribunal in determining this matter to have made those doctors and mental health professionals available for examination by the Tribunal at the Hearing. Nevertheless, I have to decide this matter based on the material placed before me. I consider that the independent medical reports referred to by Dr Isailovic were prepared, in some cases by practitioners of some seniority, who considered the applicant’s presentation, including his symptoms, the documentation provided to them, as well as applying their own professional experience. The concerns of Dr Isailovic do not convince me that the more contemporaneous reports ought to be disregarded. I cannot accept the opinion of Dr Isailovic that the applicant has never fulfilled the criteria for PTSD having regard to the contemporaneous reports which indicate that specialists and a treating psychologist were of a contrary opinion.
I find that there is no liability for compensation for medical treatment and incapacity under sections 16 and 19 of the SRC Act from the date of the report of Dr Murphy, this being

7 October 2020. I note that this alternative submission was quite properly put forward by Counsel for the Respondent at the outset of the Hearing. Dr Murphy, in his report has opined that the applicant does not meet the full DSM-V criteria for any mental health condition and has no significant occupational impairment, his opinion was not challenged. Dr Murphy, who interviewed the applicant, has reported that the applicant is working full time, is coping well with his work and wants to stay there. The applicant is currently employed at the APS3 level which is the same level as his pre-injury duties. There is no basis for me to make a finding that the respondent is liable for compensation under s 19 of the Act as there is no cogent evidence before me that the applicant required medical treatment for a PTSD condition on or after 7 October 2020.
CONCLUSION
I accept that the applicant suffered from PTSD, with symptoms presenting almost immediately, that went unrecognised as psychological trauma by the applicant, until such a time as he was provided specific training on the topic.
I place greater weight on the medical reports which are more contemporaneous to the applicant’s presentation at that time. To this effect, I prefer the opinions of Dr Lovell, Dr Ranjan, Dr Cole, Dr de Vries, Dr Zsadanyi, and Ms van de Torre, who were all of the opinion that the applicant suffered from PTSD. I accept that Dr Isailovic was unable to come to the conclusion that the applicant met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, however, on the balance of probabilities, I find the applicant more likely than not, had PTSD at the time of his compensation claim.
I also accept the report of Dr Luke Murphy, which states that the condition of PTSD suffered by the applicant had resolved at the time of the report, and that the condition of MDD suffered by the applicant was also in remission. I therefore find that there is no present entitlement to compensation for either treatment, or incapacity under s 16 and s 19 of the SRC Act respectively.
DECISION
Pursuant to subsection 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), I vary the reviewable decision dated 15 March 2019, to determine that, the applicant suffered from PTSD from the date of his claim and that liability for compensation for incapacity and treatment was correctly accepted on 23 January 2017, and that such liability ceased on 7 October 2020 as a result of the applicant’s condition having resolved by this date.

I certify that the preceding 151 (one hundred and fifty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD

.............................[SGD]...........................................
Associate
Dated: 4 November 2022

Date(s) of hearing: 15 September 2021

Date final submissions received: 22 November 2021

Applicant: By MS Teams

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Kate Slack

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Date(s) of hearing:	15 September 2021
Date final submissions received:	22 November 2021
Applicant:	By MS Teams
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Kate Slack
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers