Re Georges and Telstra Corporation Ltd

This matter concerned an application for review by MMYB of a decision by Comcare to affirm a determination that his claimed condition was not compensable. The dispute arose from MMYB's assertion that his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) had been aggravated by his employment with the Australian Federal Police (AFP), leading to his inability to work. Comcare had determined that the aggravation, if any, was a result of reasonable administrative action taken in respect of his employment, and therefore excluded from compensation under section 5A of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act). The review was heard by Cr Walsh SM.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether MMYB had suffered an "ailment" or the aggravation of an "ailment", whether this condition or its aggravation was contributed to to a significant degree by his employment with the AFP, thereby constituting a "disease" as defined by section 5B of the SRC Act, and crucially, whether MMYB's claim was excluded by section 5A of the SRC Act due to the alleged aggravation arising from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. The Tribunal was required to consider the medical evidence regarding MMYB's PTSD, its origins, and any subsequent aggravation during his AFP service, as well as the nature and reasonableness of the administrative decisions concerning his transfers.

Cr Walsh SM found that while MMYB suffered from PTSD, the medical evidence, particularly from Dr. Yue (Olivia) Lee, indicated that his PTSD was not aggravated by his employment with the AFP. Dr. Lee's supplementary report stated that the 1999 shooting incident was the cause of MMYB's PTSD and that he had not suffered any aggravation of this condition during his AFP service, noting that any functional impairment until 2013 was not significant and that MMYB had coped with his PTSD symptoms. The Tribunal concluded that the cessation of work was likely multifactorial and not solely attributable to the disorder. Therefore, the Tribunal found that MMYB had not established that his condition was an aggravation of an ailment contributed to to a significant degree by his employment, and consequently, the exclusionary provision of section 5A did not apply.

The Tribunal set aside Comcare's decision and substituted a new decision that MMYB's claim for compensation was not excluded by section 5A of the SRC Act. However, as the Tribunal found that MMYB had not established that his condition was an aggravation of an ailment contributed to to a significant degree by his employment, the claim for compensation was not upheld on that basis.