Reid and Comcare (Compensation) - [2025] ARTA 1628

Reid and Comcare (Compensation) [2025] ARTA 1628 (2 September 2025)
Applicant/s:  Jayne Reid
Respondent:  Comcare
Tribunal Number:                2024/1559

Tribunal:General Member M. Carey
Place:Melbourne
Date:2 September 2025

Decision:
1.The Tribunal sets aside the decision of 18 January 2024 under review.
2.In substitution for the decision set aside, the Tribunal decides that Ms Reid is entitled to compensation pursuant to section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC Act) in respect of the injury identified as ‘adjustment disorder’, subject of a claim for compensation dated 23 September 2023 with a date of injury of 14 September 2023 for the purposes of section 7(4) of the SRC Act.

................[SGD]................

General Member M. Carey
Catchwords
INJURY – ailment – whether employment contributed to ailment to a significant degree – whether ailment results in incapacity for work or impairment – whether medical treatment in relation to injury that was reasonable to obtain in the circumstances
LIABILITY – exclusionary proviso to definition of injury – whether administrative action taken in respect of employee’s employment – warning letter – action that is disciplinary in nature – whether administrative action contributed to the ailment to a significant degree – whether action taken reasonable and taken in a reasonable manner – reasonableness judged in the light of circumstances – disciplinary action by warning letter not reasonable in circumstances.
PROCEDURE – compliance with Tribunal notice to provide relevant documents – documents provided with redaction by respondent – redaction not authorised by Tribunal – application to Tribunal for orders regarding confidentiality to be sought by respondent – relevance of information to be considered by Tribunal on application.
PROCEDURE – unrepresented applicant –Tribunal proceedings partly adversarial and partly inquisitorial – leading of evidence – alleged perception of advocacy – perception without foundation.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases
Briggs v AWH Pty Ltd [2013] FWCFB 3316
Childs v Metropolitan Transport Trust (1981) FCA 200
Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43, (2016) 258 CLR 467
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Kennedy Cleaning Services Pty Ltd v Petkoska (2000) 200 CLR 286
Lynch and Comcare [2010] AATA 38; (2010) 114 ALD 394
Maletic v Comcare [2016] AATA 210
R v Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Company Limited; Ex parte Halliday and Sullivan [1938] HCA 44; 60 CLR 601
Weigand v Comcare (2002) 72 ALD 795
Westgate v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1987) 17 FCR 235
Statement of Reasons

Ms Jayne Reid seeks review of a decision made on 18 January 2024 by Comcare to deny liability to pay compensation pursuant to section 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act).[1] She made a claim for compensation on 25 September 2023 for an injury identified as ‘adjustment disorder with stress and anxiety.’[2] That claim was rejected by Comcare in a primary determination dated 24 November 2023[3] by the adoption of a report provided by case manager employed by Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd.[4] The initial decision was reviewed internally by Comcare prior to making the reviewable decision of 18 January 2024 by an ‘authorised delegate within Services Australia’ though communicated on the letterhead of EML (Employers Mutual Limited), an established workers compensation insurance and claims management firm.
[1] T31.1, 197-206. References to ‘T-Documents’ are references to documents lodged with the Tribunal pursuant to a Notice to the Respondent pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act), in operation when the application commenced. They are generally known as ‘Tribunal documents’, sequentially numbered, with subsequent page references.
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
[2] T8, 24-29.
[3] T24, 179.
[4] T23, 163-178
The basis for rejection of the claim was set out in the two decisions and may be summarised as follows:
(a)The condition claimed by Ms Reid was viewed as an 'ailment' on the diagnosis made by a consultant psychiatrist, Dr Inglis (Howe) Synnott, engaged by Allianz on Comcare’s behalf, set out in a report dated 26 October 2023.[5] The initial decision apparently accepted that diagnosis but on the evidence presented, did not accept that the interactions with either colleagues or work duties had made a significant contribution to the ailment to regard it as a 'disease' and therefore an 'injury' within the meaning of sections 5A(1) and 5B of the SRC Act.
(b)Services Australia launched a misconduct investigation into Ms Reid on 2 June 2023 up to 4 July 2023. Allianz and EML advised Comcare that in their opinion this conduct was a source of the diagnosed condition and should be regarded as a reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of Ms Reid's employment. As such, the ailment would be excluded from compensation by reason of the proviso to the definition of 'injury' in section 5A(1) of the SRC Act relating to injury sustained as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of an employee's employment. Allianz's initial recommendation noted that a warning letter was issued to Ms Reid on 4 July 2023 but noted 'no formal investigation proceeded.’[6]
[5] T19, 123-138
[6] T23, 166.
The dispute raises questions as to the existence of an 'injury' in the sense used in the SRC Act. Firstly, whether the signs and symptoms complained of by Ms Reid amount to an 'ailment'? Secondly, did employment contribute to that ailment to a significant degree? If the answer to each of those questions is 'yes' and the ailment resulted in impairment of function, incapacity for work (s 14 SRC Act) or was one for which Ms Reid incurred the cost of treatment 'in relation to' that injury (s 16(2) SRC Act), there is a 'disease' and, save for the operation of the exclusionary proviso to the definition of injury in s 5A(1) of the SRC Act, a compensable injury.
That proviso to the definition excludes '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 ' A further enquiry must then be made to assess the evidence of action or actions taken 'in respect of the employee's employment' to determine whether, as alleged by Comcare in this case, they contributed to a significant degree so that the disease could be said to have resulted from those actions. A further important part of the enquiry will examine the reasonableness of the actions and whether they were taken in a 'reasonable manner'.
Legislation
Comcare is liable to pay compensation pursuant to the SRC Act where an employee suffers ‘an injury’, that ‘results in’ death, incapacity for work or impairment.[7]
[7] Subsection 14(1) of the SRC Act.
The word ‘injury’ is defined in section 5A(1) of the SRC Act as a ‘disease’, or an ‘injury (other than a disease)’, often referred to as an injury in the primary sense, or as the aggravation of such an injury in the primary sense[8], whether or not that pre-existing injury was employment related.
[8] Kennedy Cleaning Services Pty Ltd v Petkoska (2000) 200 CLR 286 at 300 [39], per Gleeson CJ and Kirby J
The word ‘disease’ used in the definition of ‘injury’ is further defined in section 5B of the SRC Act as an ‘ailment’ or the aggravation of an ailment, that was ‘contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth of a licensee’.
The word ‘ailment’ itself is further defined as ‘any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development)’.[9]
[9] Subsection 4(1) of the SRC Act.
The terms ‘significant degree’ means ‘a degree that is substantially more than material’[10] and in determining that question, subsection 5B(2) of the SRC Act, without limiting the matters for consideration, provides that 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.
[10] Subsection 5(3) of the SRC Act.
An injury once identified must have identifiable compensable consequences before compensation is payable. The expression ‘incapacity for work’ resulting from an injury is taken to mean ‘(a) an incapacity to engage in any work; or (b) an incapacity to engage in work at the same level at which he or she was engaged by the Commonwealth or a licensed corporation in that work or any other work immediately before the injury happened.’[11] Further, ‘impairment’ when used in this legislation, means ‘the loss, the loss of the use, or the damage or malfunction, of any part of the body or of any bodily system or function or part of such system or function.’[12]
[11] Subsection 4(9) of the SRC Act.
[12] Subsection 4(1) of the SRC Act.
Liability to pay compensation may exist by further operation of subsection 16(2) of the SRC Act where an employee incurs the cost of medical treatment of obtained in relation to the injury ‘whether or not the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.’
The SRC Act definition of ‘injury’ excludes from the field of compensation, any ‘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.’ [13]
[13] Subsection 5A(1) of the SRC Act.
Background
Ms Reid is a 57-year-old social worker. She had been a member of the Australian Public Service since 23 May 2011. At the time of her injury, she was a Professional Social Worker (APS Level SW6) working in Services Australia, located at Rosny Park in the State of Tasmania. Her work history with the APS was summarised in a rehabilitation referral report of 3 November 2023:[14]
Ms Reid reported that commenced working within the Australian Public Service (APS) in 1995 within the Department of Social Security within the Youth Services unit. Ms Reid reported that she worked in a range of roles including within the Glenorchy, Eastern shore and Hobart offices and then completed 12-months working from the Northern Territory Centrelink office. Ms Reid reported that she later transferred to the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS) where she worked for 7 years and had her 3 children during this time. Ms Reid reported she accessed a period of leave without pay and then returned to work in 2010 from the Rosny Centrelink office. Ms Reid reported that she has predominately worked within Service Centre environments with high-risk clients, including frequent family violence presentations and has worked from the Rosny office since 2010.
[14] T20, 140.
Ms Reid submitted her claim for compensation on 25 September 2023. In that claim the following was stated: [15]
(c)The injury for which she sought compensation was ‘adjustment disorder with stress and anxiety’.
(d)At the time of injury, she was engaged in ‘General duties – social work interventions.’
(e)In answer to the question as to when she first noted symptoms, she wrote, ‘01/06/2023 9.00am.’
(f)Her account as to ‘what happened and how you were injured?’:
There have been a number of incidents in the workplace with various colleagues which over time has had a major impact on me. In addition to this my social work duties are highly stressful including work with high risk clients. Further to this I have had a misconduct claim placed on me which I don't even fully understand how it occurred. The manner in which misconduct team dealt with this was appalling in my opinion.
(g)She thought at the time of making the claim what she would be returning to work in ‘Less than 4 weeks’.
[15] T8, 25.
A medical certificate was issued on 21 September 2023 by Dr Amy Noakes of the Ochre Health Medical Centre in Hobart diagnosing ‘Adjustment disorder with stress and anxiety’ on a presentation of ‘Stress and anxiety increasing at work, increasing migraine headaches, feeling emotional and unable to cope.’ The stated cause of this condition closely parallels the descriptor given by the applicant in her compensation claim:[16]
A number of incidents with various colleagues at work over the years which have gradually built up and contributed to stress and anxiety. One involving a conflict with a colleague who is loud in the office, and Jayne needed to confront him about this resulting in him not talking to her and contributing to an uncomfortable environment. ln addition works as a social worker with high risk clients, which is stressful. Also flagged for misconduct at work for inappropriately accessing own Medicare records, which Jayne is confident she did not do, and the misconduct team would not provide any further information to her about the details of this.
[16] T6, 19.
On 27 September 2023, Ms Reid made a statement to Comcare’s claims manager at Allianz Australia Insurance Limited.[17] In that statement, she expressed her belief that her condition was ‘the result of an accumulative effect from several incidents over time. I believe the combination of these incidents and the highly stressful work I do on a daily basis as a social worker have led to a very negative impact on both my physical and mental health.’ In particular, she mentioned events as early as 2021 and also the ‘fairly recent misconduct claim.’
[17] T9, 32.
Evidence
The Tribunal heard evidence from four witnesses, Ms Reid, the applicant, and Ms Fenella Bender, her supervisor, Mr Clinton Willis of the Internal Investigations, Intelligence and Investigations Branch, Fraud Control and Investigations Division of Services Australia and finally, Associate Professor Khalid, a consultant psychiatrist.
Ms Reid has made several statements including that dated 27 July 2023,[18] her incident report of 25 May 2023,[19] her request for reconsideration of the rejection of her claim,[20] and a more recent statement of 10 March 2025 (Exhibit A1).
[18] T9, 32-33.
[19] T17.1, 113.
[20] T27.1, 188-190.
Professor Khalid made two reports, dated 4 November 2024 (Exhibit R1) and a supplementary report of 23 May 2025 (Exhibit R2).
Ms Fenella Bendall, the applicant’s immediate manager, provided a statement on 9 October 2023 (Exhibit R3),[21] and a further statement dated 1 May 2025 (Exhibit R4).
[21] T13, 61-63.
The chronology and emails to and from Ms Reid and Ms O’Driscoll and others associated with the Fraud Investigation section from 2 June to 4 July 2023 were collected together and received as Exhibit R5.
The letter of 2 June 2023 that was attached to the initial email of Ms O’Driscoll of the Fraud Investigation Unit headed ‘Opportunity to respond to allegation’ was received as Exhibit R6.
A bundle of clinical notes of the Ochre Medical Centre dated 11 January, 14 January, 16 February,21 March, 31 May, 18 July and 8 September 2022, 9 January, 10 January, 9 February, 12 April, 20 July, 14 September, 21 September and 4 October 2023 along with the clinical note of 19 September 2023 from Telus Health (formerly Benestar) were collectively tendered and marked Exhibit R7.
Disease, as a mental ailment
Comcare’s primary determination of 24 November 2023 accepted the existence of the diagnosed ‘adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood’ that had been diagnosed by Dr Inglis Synnott, the consultant psychiatrist who had been engaged by Comcare to report on the claimed condition. The reason for the initial rejection of the claim was twofold: either interactions with colleagues and work were not significant contributors to the ailment or the misconduct investigation and warning were sufficiently significant as contributors to the ailment but were exclusionary factors, being reasonable administrative actions taken in respect of Ms Reid’s employment. The reviewable decision of 18 January 2024 followed a similar reasoning.
By the time of the hearing, Comcare had obtained the report of Associate Professor Khalid dated 4 November 2024, with a supplementary report of 23 May 2025. Professor Khalid did not diagnose any significant psychiatric symptoms but merely considered ‘a possibility that she experienced a mild adjustment disorder with anxiety in relation to the misconduct investigation.’
Comcare’s closing submissions urged the finding that ‘there was no ailment suffered’ and referred me to decisions in two cases: Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439 (Mooi), and a decision of the former AAT in the matter of Kelly and Comcare [2021] AATA 2527. The later decision appears to be quite confined to its own facts and has no general application. The Tribunal had decided on the evidence that while the employee in that case had experienced ‘disappointment and a sense of injustice when discussing the events around his dismissal’ this experience did not amount to an ailment in the sense used in the SRC Act.
To qualify as an ailment in the present circumstances, Ms Reid must show that the symptoms about which she complained amounted to more than 'merely to feel unwell' as a 'subjective experience of symptoms without accompanying … psychiatric change'.[22] It is necessary that the evidence shows that Ms Reid is ‘in a condition that is outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour.'[23]
[22][22] Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May [2016] HCA 19; (2016) 257 CLR 468, 483 [57] per French CJ, Kiefel, Nettle and Gordon JJ (May).
[23] Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439, 444 per Drummond J (Mooi).
I turn to Ms Reid’s own statement, dated 27 September 2023 given at the time she made her claim for compensation.[24] In that statement she described the symptoms she was experiencing:
I have very capably performed my job as a social worker for a very long period of time with this department. I manage my health and well-being outside of work very well, however I have noticed over a number of months some symptoms of what I would describe as anxiety. I was noticing when asked to see or speak with high risk clients I was feeling like I was unable to and becoming anxious about it. I was also noticing feeling highly anxious about learning new tasks, or taking part in meetings or groups where I might have to speak. I felt that my report writing was really suffering too in the sense that I was taking too much time trying to think about how to word something. I noticed my concentration levels being affected and even my typing. This was then adding to my stress as I was beginning to worry about not getting my work done quickly enough.
I volunteered to assist the UTLAH team (assessing payments for young people leaving home) to have a break from service centre work and just focus on one piece of work. I attempted to do this still in the office and explained to staff that I was doing a different role however I still continued to have clients be referred to me and became more stressed about trying to get the UTLAH work done in time. I discussed with my line manager and we agreed that I could move out of the service centre into 188 Collins to do this work.
Over the last few weeks I have not only noticed the anxiety symptoms but I have experienced the onset of migraines which have affected my vision. I have had 4 in a short space of time. I have had headaches on a daily basis since then which have affected my sleep also as they can start at any time during the night. I have also felt nauseous on some days.
Other changes I have noticed within myself are increased irritability and impatience, avoiding people to avoid having to make conversation, some memory loss, the feeling of wanting to cry (mainly during conversations with GP and line manager) which is quite out of character for me and struggling to make decisions.
[24] T9, 32-33.

Ms Reid attended her general practitioner, Dr Amy Noakes of the Ochre Health Medical Centre in Hobart, on 14 September 2023. Dr Noakes recorded in the clinical notes:[25]
Works as a social worker at Centrelink, work can be very stressful
Has been experiencing some anxiety at work with high risk clients in service centre
Now moved into a phone based role, looking after young people leaving home
Still feeling stressed and on edge
Has made an appt with EAP through work
[25] T4, 15.
Dr Noakes commented in the Management section of the notes that migraines were ‘likely stress induced’ and sought further review and advised the applicant to try Endep for sleep and Aspirin (900mg) for the ‘acute headache’.
The following week on 21 September 2023, Dr Noakes issued a medical certificate A medical certificate diagnosing ‘Adjustment disorder with stress and anxiety’ on a presentation of ‘Stress and anxiety increasing at work, increasing migraine headaches, feeling emotional and unable to cope.’
The stated cause of this condition closely parallels the descriptor given by the applicant in her compensation claim:[26]
A number of incidents with various colleagues at work over the years which have gradually built up and contributed to stress and anxiety. One involving a conflict with a colleague who is loud in the office, and Jayne needed to confront him about this resulting in him not talking to her and contributing to an uncomfortable environment. ln addition works as a social worker with high risk clients, which is stressful. Also flagged for misconduct at work for inappropriately accessing own Medicare records, which Jayne is confident she did not do, and the misconduct team would not provide any further information to her about the details of this.
[26] T6, 19.
Ms Reid, following the submission of her claim for compensation, was referred by Comcare to Dr Inglis Synnott, a consultant psychiatrist, who examined her on 23 October 2023, and provided a report dated 26 October 2023. Dr Synnott saw Ms Reid about 4 weeks after she had ceased work and was preparing to make a gradual return to work for three days of six hours per day. He recorded the psychiatric symptoms as follows:[27]
When her psychiatric symptoms became significant in mid-2023, they included: Anxious with referrals to particular clients, loss of confidence; irritability/impatience; difficulty concentrating and focusing - increasing her sense of stress, headache/migraines with nausea, difficulty typing; poor sleep and worrying.
Since going off work, her headaches have gradually cessed; there is no anxiety about seeing clients - because she is off work.
Current psychiatric symptoms include anxiety which intrudes into everyday life, poor sleep, worrying about work, avoiding people.
On specific enquiry, she described experiencing the following symptoms to a significant degree at times since mid-2023: Poor sleep (thinking and worrying) and nightmares; anxiety and nervousness; impaired concentration and memory; loss of motivation; social withdrawal, irritability; apprehension and dread about going to work. None of following – psychotic symptoms, suicidal ideation, significant depression, alcohol/drug abuse, significant change in appetite.
[27] T19, 126.
Dr Synnott gave the following diagnosis:[28]
In my opinion, she describes experiencing sufficient symptoms to meet the diagnostic criteria of an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood - both DSM-IV and 5 criteria. Although there has been a mild improvement in her symptoms since going off work, her current symptoms still warrant a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood.
[28] T19, 129
Based on the opinions by the treating general practitioner, Dr Noakes, and that of Comcare’s own examiner, Dr Synnott, both of whom had the advantage of seeing Ms Reid when these symptoms were being experienced, I have no hesitation in finding that Ms Reid, at the relevant time, did suffer a psychiatric ailment outside the bounds of normal mental functioning that resulted in incapacity for work.
The opinion of Professor Khalid is raised to the contrary. He did not find any significant psychiatric symptoms at his examination on 18 October 2024, almost one year later than Dr Synnott’s examination and he was prepared only to suggest a possible adjustment disorder which he would have attributed to the fraud investigation and receipt of a warning letter. Ms Reid had been working her usual hours since the beginning of 2024 and had ceased psychological counselling in November 2023 at that stage.
Professor Khalid concluded that Ms Reid ‘may have suffered an adjustment disorder with anxiety about the time of the Code of Investigation and warning,[29] although the medical records do not support any psychiatric symptoms then.’[30]
[29] Professor Khalid is referring to the misconduct investigation in June 2023 and the warning letter in July 2023.
[30] Exhibit R1 page 14,
However, Professor Khalid, based on his reading of the clinical notes with which he was provided, concluded that it appeared that Ms Reid’s ‘ailment resolved’ around October 2023’ when she was informed that her workers compensation claim was declined and she returned to work’. Professor Khalid appears to rely on clinical notes provided to him although the notes he referred to, and reproduced in the report that was tendered, do not bear out the opinion that ‘her ailment resolved’ around October 2023.
The progress of Ms Reid’s recovery is reflected in the sequence of clinical notes taken by her general practitioner, Dr Noakes:
(a)19 October 2023 - A return to work plan had been formulated for a return to 3 days per week starting at 6 hours per day and to work at ‘UTLAH[31] team – 188 Collins St office, not in the service centre’. At that consultation, Dr Noakes did record a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with stress and anxiety.
(b)21 November 2023 – The return to work at three days per week was progressing.
(c)28 November 2023 – The compensation claim had been rejected by Comcare.
(d)30 November 2023 – Ms Reid stated she wanted to resume her usual 9-day fortnight hours from 11 December 2023.
(e)5 January 2024 – Ms Reid reports working her usual hours but with ‘5 claim limit per week … mood going OK; some anxiety with some difficult cases’. Again, Dr Noakes stated that the reason for the visit was ‘adjustment disorder with anxiety’.
[31] A Services Australia in-house acronym for ‘Unable To Live At Home’.
I do not consider Professor Khalid a reliable witness, particularly in the manner in which he deals with primary materials upon which he bases his opinion. He was asked about any prior psychiatric conditions and in his report of November 2024 he was prepared to state a definite opinion that Ms Reid had suffered ‘anxiety and depression in 2014 following her marriage breakup.’ He notes in his history that Ms Reid told him that she experienced ‘some anxiety in 2014’ when she was going through her breakup, but she did not mention anything about depression. Dr Khalid made reference to the clinical notes from 2014 from the Ochre Medical Centre and on 12 March 2014 Dr Karen Gartlan ‘noted that her partner was treated for depression, and they were having a difficult relationship for many years’. The Mental Health Nurse, Mr Geoff Clarke, who conducted an assessment for a Mental Health Plan noted on 11 April 2014, ‘Some anxiety symptoms (churning stomach) experienced, but nothing beyond hat to be expected under the current circumstances. No particular concerns re depression – mood remains quite bright – sleep is mildly disturbed and some weight loss.’ This history does not particularly suggest depression on Ms Reid’s part but only a history of her ex-husband’s depression.
In a supplementary report of 23 May 2025, Professor Khalid’s attention was drawn to Ms Reid’s objections to the conclusion concerning anxiety and depression in 2014, stating that the symptoms noted by Dr Garland on 4 April 2014, ‘early morning awakening, irritability, teary’ were, in his opinion, ‘classic symptoms of depression.’ If that was so, it is a mystery that he did not draw the same conclusion from Ms Reid’s statement of 27 September 2023 noted above of the ‘increased irritability and impatience, avoiding people to avoid having to make conversation, some memory loss, the feeling of wanting to cry (mainly during conversations with GP and line manager) which is quite out of character for me and struggling to make decisions.’[32] The Benestar (EAP) counselling service notes for the initial 19 September 2023 session, recorded the impact of work events as ‘Struggling to sleep, low mood and difficulty in concentrating, anxiety.’ These symptoms also seemed to have been ignored by Dr Khalid.
[32] T9, 33.
When Dr Khalid was presented with Ms Reid’s direct statements and the clinical notes of both the treating general practitioner which at various places a diagnosis of adjustment disorder later confirmed in October 2023 by a psychiatric colleague, he appears to have paid no attention to these plain reports of symptoms and diagnosis and ignored all reports suggesting a continuation of those symptoms after October 2023. I do not place any confidence in Professor Khalid’s opinion.
I found the rehabilitation referral report (known as ‘ORAMS’) dated 3 November 2023 gave a record of symptoms quite consistent with those identified in Dr Amy Noakes and Dr Inglis Synnott :[33]
[33] T20, 143.
Ms Reid reported in the last year, she commenced working within the Unreasonable to Live at Home (UTLAH) team (assessing payments for young people leaving home) to have a break from service centre work and focus on one piece of work at a time. Ms Reid reported that she initially attempted to do this while working from the Rosny office and had explained to staff that she was doing a different role however still continued to have clients referred to her. Ms Reid reported she became stressed about trying to get the UTLAH work done as well as additional service centre work. Ms Reid reported that she discussed this with her line manager, and it was agreed that she could move out of the service centre into the Collins Street Hobart office to do the UTLAH work.
• Ms Reid commented that she has performed her role as a Social Worker very capably over a long period of time and has managed her health and well-being outside of work very well. Despite this, Ms Reid reported that she has noticed symptoms of anxiety building over many months including:
o Ms Reid reported anxiety and feelings of hypervigilance and avoidance when asked to speak with high-risk clients.
o Ms Reid reported anxiety at learning new tasks or taking part in meetings/groups where she might have to speak.
o Ms Reid reported poor concentration and a reduced speed in her work (e.g., typing, reports). Ms Reid commented that she began taking too much time with report writing when trying to think about how to word something.
o Ms Reid reported irritability, impatience and avoiding people and social interactions at times.
o Ms Reid reported feeling nauseas on some days.
o Ms Reid reported the onset of migraine headaches which have affected her vision, having had 4 migraines in a short space of time over the past month.
o Ms Reid also reported experiencing headaches on a daily basis. which have impacted her sleep.
o Ms Reid reported experiencing some memory loss and cognitive difficulty including impaired concentration and difficulty making decisions.
o Ms Reid reported feeling emotional and tearful at times, mainly during conversations with her General Practitioner (GP) and line manager which she commented is quite out of character for her.
• Ms Reid reported that she accessed some time off work and accessed support via the workplace Employee Assistance Program (EAP) through Benestar having had completed 2 sessions at the time of the initial assessment.
I prefer the opinions of Dr Amy Noakes and Dr Inglis Synnott concerning the finding of an ailment, being an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression.
Comcare’s submissions complain that procedural fairness was not afforded to it because neither Dr Synnott or Dr Noakes were made available for cross-examination and thus no weight could be given to his opinion. I do not accept this submission. Dr Synnott’s report was obtained by Comcare itself. Comcare was quite capable of requesting Dr Synnott’s attendance at the hearing and if Comcare wanted to cross-examine its own witness, they were at liberty to make such an application. The only inference I am prepared to draw from the failure to call Dr Synnott is that his evidence would not have supported Comcare’s contentions. Dr Noakes’ clinical notes were available for support for the opinion of Dr Synott. Those notes were provided to both Dr Synnott and Professor Khalid by Comcare itself for the formulation of their opinions. Looking at the evidence concerning the existence of an ailment, I am quite satisfied on the basis of those contemporaneous clinical notes and the opinion of Comcare’s own medical examiner who had the advantage of seeing Ms Reid at the time the symptoms were experienced, based on the account of those symptoms given by Ms Reid, that she suffered an ailment that resulted in incapacity for work.
Significant contribution by employment
Little was said in submissions about the employment contribution to the ailment other than the role that the misconduct investigation starting on 2 June 2023 and the warning letter of 4 July 2023 played. In that respect, Professor Khalid offered the following opinions in his 4 November 2024 report:
Ms Reid has retrospectively mentioned various interpersonal issues with her colleagues over the years, although there was not mention of any psychiatric symptoms in her medical records then.
…
Ms Reid’s work as a social worker would have normal stress as would be applicable to any worker doing the same duties
…
The formal Code of Conduct process would have been stressful for Ms Reid; however, I note that there is no mention of any consultation with the GP around June and July 2023 and she only went to see her in September 2023.
…
As noted earlier, Ms Reid’s daughter had some sort of procedure in September 2023 which she did not provide details of and I understand that it is her daughter’s personal medical information.
Asked about the contribution any factors played to the health outcome, Professor Khalid said:
I do not consider that the alleged conflict with her work colleagues over the years has contributed to any psychiatric condition. The Code of Conduct investigation would have been stressful for her but it is not supported by any documentation in her medical records. In September 2023, her daughter had some sort of procedure for which she took carer’s leave following which she also lodged a Workers’ Compensation claim. I am unable to identify the exact reason why she stopped working in September 2023.
Comcare submits that an adjustment disorder ‘usually arises very quickly in response to a stress. 3 months is unusual and the outer limit’. This argument assumes the possible onset of the disorder ought to be in close proximity to an incident, such as the investigation and warning letter, and if not, then it is unlikely to be employment related.
Comcare’s submission is based on Professor Khalid’s knowledge of particular events, though not on the generally stressful nature of the work performed by Ms Reid, or the circumstances in which that work was performed. The opinion focusses on the specific actions taken by the employer in commencing an investigation into Ms Reid’s accessing of her own Medicare record using a work computer as opposed to a mobile phone, and the subsequent 4 July 2023 letter of warning. Professor Khalid identified a possible adjustment disorder but noted that the time when Ms Reid sought time off work in late September 2023 was more than three months after the 2 June notification of the start of the misconduct investigation.
However, the question of whether there has been an employment contribution is not limited to specific events. Long ago, the question of employment contribution was examined by the High Court in Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626 (Semlitch). Windeyer J’s judgement is often cited on this point when he stated:[34]
When the Act speaks of " the employment" as a contributing factor it refers not to the fact of being employed, but to what the worker in fact does in his employment. The contributing factor must in my opinion be either some event or occurrence in the course of the employment or some characteristic of the work performed or the conditions in which it was performed.
[34] (1964) 110 CLR 626, 641
This combination of specific events or circumstances has been referred to in other leading judgements, as ‘incident or state of affairs’[35] or ‘an incident or an event or circumstances in the employment constituting a fact or factors which contributed to the contraction of the disease.’[36] The determination of employment contribution to the ailment is not limited to identified events. The definition of ‘significant contribution’ in paragraph 5B(2)(b) of the SRC Act required the decision maker, Comcare, to take account of ‘the nature of, and particular tasks involved in, the employment.’
[35] Weigand v Comcare (2002) 72 ALD 795, 796 [23], [27] per Von Doussa J.
[36] Westgate v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1987) 17 FCR 235, 240 per Davies J.
The Tribunal questioned both Ms Reid and her immediate supervisor, Ms Bendall, about circumstances of employment. In the case of Ms Reid, the opening questioning lasted for about 1.5 hours to clarify certain facts. Ms Reid was not represented and there were matters that needed to be clarified in evidence going to the facts and circumstances of employment. The Tribunal was criticised by the respondent in final written submissions for doing so:
14. Finally, the Tribunal appeared to advocate for the applicant at points, going beyond assistance to a self-represented party, and to seek to adduce new evidence from A/Prof Khalid that may support arguments never made by the applicant. The Tribunal also led evidence from the applicant at the opening of the hearing for about 1.5 hours which appeared overly long. The Tribunal must remain impartial and in making its decision must avoid the perils of self-persuasion: Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263 at [3]; Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577at [110]-[112].
The respondent’s perception that the Tribunal advocated for Ms Reid is erroneous. The Tribunal has an investigatory role, having power to inform itself in any way it thinks appropriate. The questioning of Ms Reid for 1.5 hours was to adduce evidence necessary for the decision that the Tribunal is required to make on review and in no way prevented the respondent from presenting its own case. The questions posed of Ms Reid were no more than could be expected in any examination in chief, had Ms Reid the benefit of counsel. The respondent’s right of cross-examination was in no way infringed. Only one question posed by the Tribunal was objected to and no answer was pressed from the witness at that stage.
Ms Reid is a self-represented applicant. She made several statements in writing concerning the circumstances surrounding her claim for compensation that have been included in the Tribunal documents. She made a further written statement on 10 March 2025 which focusses on issues raised in the report of Associate Professor Khalid’s report of 4 November 2024. While much of that later statement contains material that is more in the nature of submission than evidence, I received that statement into evidence as Exhibit A1 to the extent that it gave evidence of facts and circumstances that Ms Reid could give evidence of from her own experiences.
The Tribunal also questioned the applicant concerning some of the events and circumstances and the effect she felt in relation to them. This was done in order to obtain detail surrounding some of the issues in employment that were not fully explored in the statements. In doing so, leading questions of a controversial nature were avoided, and the respondent was permitted to cross examine upon completion of Ms Reid’s evidence in chief.

Ms Reid agreed that the job description contained in the Tribunal documents was a reasonable description of the work she performed. That description stated in part:[37]
Social Workers (SW6) are part of the local leadership team. They work in conjunction with service officers, community groups and allied health service providers to deliver services to customers facing significant disadvantage, or multiple complex challenges, who require coordinated assistance. Social Workers (SW6) work with individuals, families and communities to promote resilience and help address problems that people experience during times of major change or crisis.
Social Workers assess the social needs of individuals, families and groups, assist and empower people to develop and use the skills and resources needed to resolve social and other problems, and further human wellbeing and human rights, social justice and social development.
Social Workers provide professional assessments, social casework, intensive support and intervention services to customers who have multiple and complex needs. Social Workers (SW6.) advocate for vulnerable customers to influence sustainable and positive change ·including supporting their transition to mainstream services. They collaborate with other staff, government and non-government agencies to deliver services; provide staff support and development and play an active role in educating the community about agency services.
Social Workers undertakes their role under the limited direction of the EL 1 Social Work Support Manager (SWSM7). They exercise both initiative and professional judgement in the interpretation of policy and in the application of practices and procedures. Decision making is substantially dependent on judgement, skills and knowledge. Social Workers (SW6) manage their work in the context of competing priorities and contribute to business planning, changes in workplace practices and business improvement strategies.
[37] T13, 57-58.
In her statement made on 27 September 2023, at the time of her claim for compensation, Ms Reid pointed to both events in the course of her employment and to the stressful nature of the employment itself. She opened that statement by affirming that she believed ‘my current state of health has been the result of an accumulative effect from several incidents over time. I believe the combination of these incidents and the highly stressful work I do on a daily basis as a social worker have led to a very negative impact on both my physical and mental health.’[38]
[38] T9, 32.
Ms Reid gave evidence of the circumstances of her general work at the times relevant to this claim in the light of the complaint she made about her co-worker on 25 May 2025. This was an Aged Care Specialist Officer who was collocated at the Rosny Service Centre from about mid-2022. Ms Reid, in her original statement said:
I used to be seated next to him and (along with many others in the office) have found him extremely and inappropriately loud during his phone calls. I had asked him on a couple of occasions to decrease his volume as I was finding it hard to concentrate and also felt uncomfortable when I was on a call of a sensitive nature (which most social work calls are). Other staff members, mainly one, asked him also on a very regular basis to keep his volume down. The situation got to her so much she relocated to another part of the office during the refit. Some of his calls were also very inappropriate during the time of the Optus and Medibank data breaches as he is a customer of both and was making calls to both organisations and was extremely rude to the person taking the call. I pointed out to him one day that the people taking those calls are in a very difficult situation and the data breach was not their fault and perhaps he could be a bit more pleasant to them, as we ask our customers to be towards us. He ended up going into an interview room to make the calls. One staff member said she had to leave the office one day when she could over hear him make one of these calls as his treatment of the person on the other end was impacting her so much. Other staff members have spoken to me about his behaviour in the office also I am aware that my line manager and also office manager have spoken to his line manager in an attempt to address some of the issues in relation to him.
After one time when I asked him to be more mindful of his volume and the impact it has on others in the office he chose not to speak with me from that day on. A few months (approximately) later I arrived at work and he was talking on his mobile phone loudly and had it on speaker so the person he was speaking to was also very loud. My social work colleague said to me that he had been on the call for about 20 minutes at that volume. I politely asked him to turn the volume down as it was really loud, which he did. After he ended the call he turned to me very sternly and said that he did not like the way I had asked him to turn the volume down and that I should be aware that not only social work clients have issues but staff members can too and that whilst speaking to me he was trembling. It seemed he was implying that he has his own issues, however I feel that this is not any of my business. I was also trembling during this conversation as it was not pleasant. I stated to him that I was sorry that he felt that way and it was not my intention to cause any such feelings that I merely wanting him to turn his phone down and be aware of others in the office. I spoke to my line manager about this and lodged a bullying complaint as I had reached the point where I had had enough of his behaviour. I continued to have to work in this office with him in the small back of office space on a regular basis. That experience has been a very negative one for me as I found myself constantly looking out for where he was trying to avoid him, as running into him caused me to feel very uncomfortable.
It is important to note the conditions in which Ms Reid had to perform her duties. She told the Tribunal she was positioned in a ‘small, back of office space’ away from the larger open plan area where most of the staff worked. The number of people sharing this small back office varied because front-of-house staff might be located there from time to time to do processing work. The numbers varied from 4 to 5 staff to up to 9 or 10 staff in that same space. She said that she mostly worked on the telephone to perform her work. The social work staff were not given private offices within the Service Centre to perform their duties. Ms Reid said that at an earlier stage, if there was a need to personally interview a client then she might get access to an interview room but then return to her desk. Ms Reid told the Tribunal that most of the time she had to discuss sensitive personal issues with client over the telephone. For some of the time she could hear similar discussions by one other social worker on the other side of the small rear room. She found it a problem conducting sensitive, personal discussions in an open plan area, where co-located staff were not mindful of the volume of sound from their own conversations on the phone. She described having to ask co-workers to moderate their voices on occasions. She said she said a degree of stress and emotions in most conversations but when the volume from surrounding conversation made it difficult for her to concentrate it was more stressful. The continuing conversation around her made it difficult also to write reports. In relation to the particular complaint made on 25 May 2023 about the Aged Care Specialist Officer there was additional stress because of what she found to be inappropriate matters being discussed in the workplace, referring to his calls concerning Medibank and Optus data breaches and the manner in which he addressed the person on the other end of the line. She also instanced his loud laughter which intruded into her work conversations with clients experiencing personal crises. She found that conducting such interviews with such noise in the background was unprofessional.
The complaint she made in late May was directed to the ‘Respect Team’ which she regarded as having some degree of pastoral care? for staff. The ‘Respect Manager’ emailed her on 9 June 2025 about the circumstances of the events in May and the fact that the other employee concerned had ceased to talk to her, a collection of circumstances that caused Ms Reid ‘stress and discomfort’ in the workplace. Ms Reid told the Tribunal that in a telephone conversation with the ‘Respect Manager’ she was told that the Aged Care Service Officer had been spoken to separately by his own manager, but she felt that she had not been given many details on how that had been managed. She told the Tribunal that this officer did not speak to her after one of her complaints. She said that she had made three complaints over a few months, but the last one in May 2025 was in writing. At another point in her evidence, she stated that the Aged Care Service Officer had been given a separate interview room to use when conducting his interviews.
The Respect Manager’s email of 9 June 2025 to Ms Reid had named the other staff officer concerned but the name was redacted when it was included in the Tribunal documents. I asked the Respondent’s counsel why such a redaction had been made and whether this redaction had been authorised by the Tribunal. Counsel for the respondent said that Comcare was only obliged to provide relevant information in answer to a notice pursuant to section 37 of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) and the specific identity of the Aged Case Services officer was not relevant. It was apparent that the redaction was made by Comcare. Since Ms Reid, the primary decision maker and review officer as well as the officer responsible for answering the former AAT’s section 37 notice would have had the original email document, I found that answer unconvincing. Ms Reid was able to give answers to questions about the incident by reference to his name. The document of 9 May 2023 was determined by Comcare to be sufficiently relevant to be included in the return of the respondent pursuant to section 37 of the AAT Act. Redaction was not authorised. I directed that the email should be provided without redaction. If there was a need to maintain some confidentiality, an application could be made to the Tribunal pursuant to subparagraph 70(1)((a)(ii) of the ART Act concerning ‘any person relate to or otherwise associated with any a party…’. No such application was made by the respondent at any time of the proceeding. The determination of the relevance of documents, or parts of documents, is ultimately one for the Tribunal and not for the respondent alone. Redaction of documents for inclusion in the Tribunal documents must never be made unless an order is obtained from the Tribunal after application is properly made in the course of the proceedings. It is common enough for the security agencies to do so upon receipt of a notice of the Tribunal since they accept that they alone cannot determine the degree and manner in which confidentiality of identities or information is to be managed. The same obligation extends to respondents under the SRC Act.
Ms Reid also gave evidence of the burden she experienced from the nature of the referrals of clients she received from ‘front of house’ staff. Again, in her original statement she said:[39]
I have worked alongside another social worker for several years who I have had some issues with also. I felt for a long time that this social worker did not 'pull her weight' and the majority of the referrals would come to me. Staff would actually walk past her to come to me with a referral. I consider myself to have always had a good working relationship with the office staff and would be open to discuss referrals whereas my social work colleague did not have the same relationship and often appeared to avoid referrals. I spoke with my line manager about this issue also and we looked at various ways to address this. One day this situation hit a point where we needed to talk about it, the social worker herself and myself. This was also a very difficult interaction for me and one that has had an impact over a long period of time. I feel that currently this situation has improved to a degree, however I am mentioning it in this statement because of the impact it has also had on me.
[39] T9, 32
Ms Fenella Bendall, the applicant’s direct supervisor gave evidence that Ms Reid reported to her on 7 July 2023 that she was ‘concerned she was getting frustrated by the ongoing front of house referrals and was hopeful that the move into a different team may assist.’[40] Ms Bendall gave evidence during the hearing and repeated the evidence that Ms Reid had expressed this frustration with the work coming at her from the front of house staff.
[40] Exhibit R3, T13, 61 [6]
In Ms Bendall’s further Statement of 1 May 2025 (Exhibit R4) she gave evidence that this problem had been a recurring one in some form or other for some years:
6. Further to paragraph 9(a) of my First Statement, when Jayne first raised with me that she felt a colleague was not taking her share of front of house referrals I spoke to Jayne about it on various occasions in 2018 and 2019. We discussed what is realistic for each social worker to undertake and how to deal with the issue. The other social worker and Jayne adopted a different approach to the work. The other social worker would ask more questions about the referral and sought reasons for the referral to ensure that it was appropriate. Where it was not appropriate she would not accept the referral. Jayne took a different approach and would accept referrals without asking as many questions. The approach taken by the other social worker was appropriate and I considered that she was pulling her weight. When the issue arose again in September 2021 I suggested that a roster be put in place with each social worker dealing with referrals on alternate days. The roster was implemented. As advised in my First Statement, the issue has not been raised again since late 2021.
I cannot accept that the issue had not been raised ‘since late 2021’ since her first statement explicitly refers to Ms Reid’s report on 7 July 2023 that she was ‘concerned was concerned she was getting frustrated by the ongoing front of house referrals.’ That statement was not retracted.
Ms Bendall gave evidence that after talking to Ms Reid on 7 July 2023 concerning these frustrations, she agreed that there could be some change of duties. For a period, Ms Reid was placed into something called a ‘Tiger Team’. Ms Bendall stated that this was a team created because of the amount of work that was being taken on. She described this work as ‘virtual work’ that was allocated by the system when the social worker would pick up and make an outbound call. By 4 September 2023, following a period of personal leave, Ms Bendall resumed work and in or about this time, Ms Reid was transferred to the UTLAH team, initially at Rosny but then at 188 Collins Street. Her statement (Exhibit R3) identified the 4 September 2023 conversation as where she learned Ms Reid has made an appointment to see her general practitioner for the following week and that Ms Reid told her she was experiencing symptoms of anxiety. She remained Ms Reid’s supervisor to some degree into October 2023 although the UTLAH comes under another supervisor’s control. It was felt that given the fact that Ms Reid was suffering symptoms that were increasingly concerning, starting to engage with the employee assistance scheme and ultimately, ceasing work from 21 September 2023, Ms Bendall would remain in place as supervisor. Ms Bendall described how Ms Reid expressed to her on that last day that she was feeling overwhelmed and that these symptoms or feelings were about matters in the workplace. Ms Bendall said that Ms Reid had not mentioned being overwhelmed by matters outside the workplace.
Regarding the frustrations expressed bout the front of house referrals, I find that it is Ms Reid’s work style to accept referrals at a greater rate than her colleagues. That said, the acceptance of those referrals led to a burden of stress over and above the stressful nature of the work itself as well as the conditions under which the work was performed.
I also note that this stressful burden continued during and after the misconduct investigation commenced on 2 June 2023 and a warning letter was issued on 4 July 2023.
It was raised by the respondent in her cross-examination that Ms Reid’s clinical notes for the Ochre Medical Centre for 20 July 2023 recorded: ‘Sleep going well, Emotionally going well’. It was raised by the respondent to further its submission based on Professor Khalid’s report that he could find no likely contribution from employment to any possible adjustment disorder. However, Mr Reid was on leave from work at that time and not confronted with any of the usual problems associated with her employment duties of the circumstances under which that was performed. She had been on pre-arranged long service leave from 10 July to 21 July 2023[41] and the medical appointment was at the very end of that period of leave. The clinical notes from the next medical appointment with Dr Amy Noakes of the Ochre Health Centre on 14 September 2023 presented an entirely different picture. In those notes, she reported four headaches over the previous two weeks and told her doctor that she had experienced migraines from time to time since childhood. She would take aspirin to prevent the onset of headache because she had associated premonitory symptoms of blind spots or other visual disturbance. The notes then recorded:
Works as a social worker at centrelink, work can be very stressful
Has been experiencing some anxiety at work wtih [sic] high risk clients in service centre
Now moved into a phone based role, looking after young people leaving home
Still feeling stressed and on edge
Has made an appt with EAP through work
[41] T13, 83 Leave records.
Ms Bendall had been away from work on leave until early September 2023. Her original statement recorded:[42]
Jayne advised on 7/7/2023 that she was concerned she was getting frustrated by the ongoing front of house referrals and was hopeful that the move into a different team may assist. Upon rny return from leave on 4/9/2023 I spoke with Jayne, and she indicated that she had made an appointment with the GP later that week as she felt she was experiencing symptoms of anxiety. Jayne also advised she had made an appointment with EAP for the following week. SWSM spoke with Jayne after GP appointment and Jayne advised she had a follow up appointment with GP the following week. Jayne provided a medical certificate on 21/9/2023.
[42] T13, 61.
Ms Reid’s original statement of 27 September 2023 referred to the changes to this new work but it appears to have been not successful in relieving her from the stressors of her employment:[43]
I volunteered to assist the UTLAH team (assessing payments for young people leaving home) to have a break from service centre work and just focus on one piece of work. I attempted to do this still in the office and explained to staff that I was doing a different role however I still continued to have clients be referred to me and became more stressed about trying to get the UTLAH work done in time. I discussed with my line manager and we agreed that I could move out of the service centre into 188 Collins to do this work.
Over the last few weeks I have not only noticed the anxiety symptoms but I have experienced the onset of migraines which have affected my vision. I have had 4 in a short space of time. I have had headaches on a daily basis since then which have affected my sleep also as they can start at any time during the night. I have also felt nauseous on some days.
Other changes I have noticed within myself are increased irritability and impatience, avoiding people to avoid having to make conversation, some memory loss, the feeling of wanting to cry (mainly during conversations with GP and line manager) which is quite out of character for me and struggling to make decisions.
[43] T9, 33.

Benestar is the former name of TELUS Health, an employee assistance program service providing psychological counsellors for staff members. Ms Reid had five sessions with a counsellor from that service on 19 September, 2, 10 and 24 October and lastly on 9 November 2023, by which time she had returned to work at three days per week as part of a rehabilitation program, having ceased work some five weeks earlier in late September 2023. The notes of this counselling service had been summoned to the Tribunal and Ms Reid was taken in cross-examination to the note for 19 September 2023, the initial session which recorded the impact of work events as ‘Struggling to sleep, low mood and difficulty in concentrating, anxiety.’ The history recorded under the heading ‘Key discussion’ stated:
Client is aware that work has not been good for the last two years since she was accused by a colleague for being unprofessional at work because she received flowers at work. Since this time client has been very wary of who she speaks to and with at work as she does not want to trust people and be let down again. The colleague involved has since retired but client lives in a similar area and finds herself avoiding places where she might run into her. Client is struggling with the constant demands in the service center and at the moment has been given the opportunity to work from another office where she is able to focus on her assessments and reports without being interrupted. Client over the last few weeks has been struggling with headaches and having vision disturbances as well as feeling nauseous. Client has been to GP and is due to go back later in the week to request further tests and possibly a CT scan and MRI.
Ms Reid was cross-examined on the substance of this note since it was referring to an event that occurred in 2021, over two years prior. Ms Reid in her first statement had mentioned these events:[44]
In January 2021 I experienced an incident with a social work colleague that involved her sending me a message after hours which was incredibly negative about my personal life. On the Monday morning following her message on the Friday night she made no apologies for her inappropriate message and therefore I made the decision to not engage with her from that point on. This was very difficult however as I sat right next to her, therefore it was extremely uncomfortable for the remainder of the time I worked with her. I spoke to my line manager about this issue and we discussed options of how to manage the situation. I chose at the time to not take any action in relation to this person as I knew her retirement was imminent.
[44] T9, 32
However, in her evidence Ms Reid did refer to further experiences of anxiety symptoms about confronting the former social work colleague even after that person retired because she lived in the same locality and would go to the same shopping centre where there were opportunities for social confrontation. She said that she had intermittent feelings of anxiety.
When asked by the respondent why, on the opening session with the counsellors, Ms Reid did not go straight to the recent stressful events and circumstances, she said that that she wanted to set out her history and start at the beginning and that the sessions were only about 50 minutes, and she had no time to tell her full story at that first session. I accept that evidence, since it accords with the way in which she set out her history in the statement made on 27 September 2023, just eight days later.
The clinical notes of the Ochre Medical Centre for 21 September 2023, two days after the first session with Benestar, record, albeit briefly, the presenting complaints:
Presenting complaint:
1. Workplace stress and anxiety
Saw EAP psychologist
Found her quite a good fit, good practical tips
Seeing her again next week
Discussed work stress
Multiple incidence [sic] with colleagues over the years that have contributed and recently flagged for misconduct in inappropraitely [sic] accessing her medicare file, which she says she didn't do and then the misconduct team would not provide any further information.
Also stress from high risk clients in job as a social worker has all added up.
Would like to put through workcover.
Ms Reid, in her original statement, put the effect of the employment in this way:[45]
I have very capably performed my job as a social worker for a very long period of time with this department. I manage my health and well-being outside of work very well, however I have noticed over a number of months some symptoms of what I would describe as anxiety. I was noticing when asked to see or speak with high risk clients I was feeling like I was unable to and becoming anxious about it. I was also noticing feeling highly anxious about learning new tasks, or taking part in meetings or groups where I might have to speak. I felt that my report writing was really suffering too in the sense that I was taking too much time trying to think about how to word something. I noticed my concentration levels being affected and even my typing. This was then adding to my stress as I was beginning to worry about not getting my work done quickly enough.
[45] T9, 33.
I have already referred to the opinion of Dr Inglis Synott, who examined Ms Reid by video conference on 23 October 2023. I accept his opinion that she suffers ‘Adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood’.
I also accept the accuracy of Ms Reid’s account of the facts and circumstances of her employment over a period of time, but particularly in the year leading up to her ceasing work on 21 September 2023.
I also accept Dr Synnott’s opinion that the diagnosed ailment, adjustment disorder, ‘developed in the context of her employment. No other factors were identified as contributing to the onset and perpetuation of her psychiatric difficulties.’[46] Specifically, he identified ‘incidents with work colleagues and the "misconduct matter''; other factors identified - working with high-risk clients and her workload.’ In his report summary and assessment, he noted:[47]
According to Ms Reid, regarding her employment at Services Australia, she first experienced significant psychiatric symptoms in mid-2023- it had been building up since early 2021. She attributed her work-related psychiatric duties to problems with some work colleagues (with a final incident in June 2023) and, also, dealing with high-risk clients and her workload. Prior to going off work in September 2023, since starting with Services Australia, she worked nine days a fortnight. Five-six weeks before she went off work, she changed from working in the service centre to doing a less demanding job - phone contact dealing with young people who had just left home.
According to Ms Reid, by 21 September 2023, she had reached the point where she felt psychiatrically unable to continue at work- and went off work. She has not return.
[46] T19, 132.
[47] T19, 128-129.
I have earlier expressed reasons not to accept Professor Khalid’s opinion and they hold in relation to the question whether employment contributed to the ailment.
As to the level of the employment contributions to her ailment, I find, like Dr Synnott, there are no factors other than her employment contributing to her ailment. Accordingly, I find that employment did make a significant contribution to the ailment, and so, but for consideration of the question whether any reasonable administrative action was taken in respect of her employment, she is entitled to compensation.
There was some distraction from the proper enquiry as to causation of the injury by various reflections on the ‘date of injury’ or its onset. In answer to a question on the Comcare claim form
Administrative action taken in respect of the employee’s employment
I now turn to the question of reasonable administrative action. It was the respondent’s contention that, in the event that the Tribunal did find that an ailment had been suffered to which employment contributed to a significant degree, it should be excluded from the field of compensation on the ground that it was also contributed to by reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment.
Until the hearing of this matter, there had been repeated reference to the action being taken as part of a process approved by the Code of Conduct. The reviewable decision referred to the process as a ‘code of conduct investigation.’[48] That was acknowledged in the respondent’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SFIC) dated 1 May 2025 where, at [2], it was noted that the reviewable decision ‘determined that the condition was likely suffered as a result of the Code of Conduct matter …’ and at [12] where the fact that on 2 June 2023 the applicant was informed of the internal investigation into possible unauthorised access by her to protected information related to her own Medicare record via the myGov linking application (Code of Conduct matter).’ The respondent’s SFIC eventually asserted at [40] that ‘applicant’s condition was not contributed to, to a significant degree, by the Code of Conduct matter.’
[48] T31.1, 203.
Ms Reid first learned of this ‘Code of Conduct’ matter when she received a text message sent to her from the senior social work manager, Ms Cunningham, that is, the manager two grades above her, that she was about to have contact with the Fraud Investigation Team
Shortly afterwards, Ms Reid received a telephone call from Ms O’Driscoll stating the allegation and requiring a response. Ms Reid stated that she found Ms O’Driscoll to be ‘quite rude’ on the telephone. She got no explanation as to why there had been such a long delay from late October 2022 to early June 2023 to bring this matter to her attention.
There followed a series of emails starting on 2 June 2023, the first being from Ms O’Driscoll attaching some ‘letter offering you the opportunity to respond to the allegation.’ The email exchange continued up to 6 June 2023. She thought that Ms O’Driscoll then went on leave because she had correspondence from another officer about these matters later. I note that Ms Reid also copied some responses to her immediate manager, Fay Bendall, including responses on 2, 5 and 6 June 2023.
Ms O’Driscoll had made a statement dated 10 October 2023 in which she confirmed that all her emails were copied to Ms Bendall, the immediate supervisor. She stated that she last received any email from Ms Reid on 4 July 2023, advising her that she had been notified that the investigation had been finalised and that the matter had been referred on to a different area of Services Australia, identified as ‘Conduct Standards’. Ms Reid told her on 4 July 2023 that she was shortly to go on leave and wanted the matter dealt with before she left for leave. Ms O’Driscoll stated that she advised her Assistant Director, Ms Clinton Willis, and that he passed the request on to Conduct Standards. By reference to the timestamp on the emails in the Tribunal documents, there was only 11 minutes from the time of Ms Reid’s email requesting action and the passing of the request on to Conduct Standards on 4 July 2023. Mr Clinton Willis of the Internal Investigations, Intelligence and Investigations Branch, Fraud Control and Investigations Division of Services Australia did give evidence to the Tribunal as to the investigation and the fact that the findings of the investigation were passed to the ‘Conduct Standards’ part of the department.
The letter of 4 July 2023 headed ‘Suspected Breach of the Code of Conduct – Warning’, was then issued by Ms Lindie McKay, Acting Director, Conduct Standards, Workplace Relations Division of Services Australia dated 4 July 2023.[49]
[49] T13, 76-77.
Prior to that letter being issued, Ms Reid did not speak to anyone at Conduct Standards, about the investigation or whatever action was contemplated in relation to the investigation.
It is also important to note that Ms Lindie McKay was not called to give evidence and made no statement as to how the investigation information was received and considered, and how she elected to follow the course of conduct that she did. All the Tribunal has to go on is the text of the letter.
The key parts of this 4 July 2023 letter, which Comcare contends forms the administrative action upon which it relies for its answer to the claim for liability, states:[50]
[50] T13, 76-77.
I am writing to you as it is suspected that you may have failed to comply with Services Australia (the agency) policies and legislation relating to unauthorised access to customer information.
The agency's Fraud Investigations Branch (FIB) has provided a report dated 13 June 2023 concerning your actions, which is attached for your reference. The report identified that you accessed your own Medicare details Without authority on 28 October 2022 via the myGov staff linking application.
Your response to the allegation
You stated you have accessed myGov on your desktop at work via the Services Australia website, which the Fraud Investigations Branch indicated is not an issue. To your knowledge, you have not accessed the myGov staff linking app in relation to your personal details.
You have no knowledge of how your logon (EVY) is recorded as having accessed the CA GETPORO (get proof of record ownership) screen with your Medicare card number and you were unaware of the myGov staff linking app until your conversation with the Senior Investigator.
In your response you asked to be provided with screen shots of your logon access and Medicare details, as it may provide you with additional information to help clarify the situation. On 6 June 2023 you were advised that screen shots were not available but were provided With the Internal Investigations Summary showing the analysis of the CDMS logs which established your access to the protected information via the myGov linking app on 28 October 2022.
Considerations in relation to your unauthorised access
The agency has responsibility for, and is entrusted with, a huge and varied amount of personal and sensitive information. It is essential, therefore, that employees maintain the integrity and confidentiality of this information.
As an agency employee, your duties may require access to the agency's customer records. As a result, when you are provided with access to the agency's systems you are expected to treat customer records in an appropriate way.
Specifically, it is expected that you will only access information that you require for your work and for which you have the appropriate authority to access. Under no circumstance, is it ever appropriate to access customer records out of curiosity or to search for records of yourself, family members and/or acquaintances.
Reminder of your obligations
Whilst on this occasion it has been decided not to take any formal action, this letter should be treated as notification that any further instances of unauthorised access to protected customer or employee information will be referred for a Code of Conduct investigation.
You should treat this letter as a strong reminder of your obligations in regards to accessing customer information.
The remainder of the letter invited Ms Reid to review the linked documents on ‘Unauthorised Access’, ‘Inadvertent access and authorised access’, ‘Conduct and Behaviour Policy’, ‘Fraud and Corruption Awareness Hub’ as well as a copy of the APS Values and Code of Conduct. It was noted that the ‘Unauthorized Access factsheet’ had details of ‘the range of sanctions that could be imposed on you, should you be found to have breached the Code of Conduct in future.’ Those consequences were noted:[51]
There can be serious consequences lor unauthorised access, such as:
·reassignment or duties
·salary reduction
·reduction of classification
·termination or employment
·in serious cases and cases of fraud, criminal prosecution.
[51] T13, 79.
In another document detailing potential consequence of a breach of the APS Code of Conduct, the following sanctions were identified:
·a reprimand
·deduction from salary, by way of a fine not to exceed 2 per cent of annual salary
·reassignment of duties
·reduction in classification
·reduction in salary
·termination of employment.
In the course of the hearing, I noted that the 4 July 2023 letter headed ‘Suspected Breach of the Code of Conduct – Warning’, did not conform to any outcome contemplated by any of the Codes of Conduct identified in the documents.
Counsel for the respondent replied that the letter of 4 July 2023 was to be properly considered as a warning and by the time of closing submissions, had drawn the Tribunal’s attention to a series of authorities on the nature of warnings and in what ways they were connected to employment and should be considered ‘administrative’ in nature. The submissions advanced several propositions:
(a)The power to warn is a corollary of the power of all employers to issue lawful and reasonable directions to employees.
(b)The head of any Commonwealth agency has the same powers of any employer in respect of any public sector employee and hence can issue a warning.
(c)Further, there is no obligation to afford procedural fairness on the question of whether to institute a disciplinary process to consider whether or not there may have been a breach of the Code of Conduct, relying on Childs v Metropolitan Transport Trust (1981) FCA 200 at 7. However, had the ‘process involving Ms Reid led to a Code of Conduct process, that process would have entailed procedural fairness being afforded before any findings of breach of the Code were made or sanctions imposed (the lowest of which is a reprimand). However, this is all irrelevant as it did not occur.’
(d)Warnings are ‘clearly administrative action’, relying on the decision in Maletic v Comcare [2016] AATA 210 where Deputy President McCabe grouped the similar concepts of counsel/admonish/warn’.
(e)Whether such action is reasonable does not depend on whether a more preferable course of action lay open to the employer. It must be established that the action taken was itself not reasonable.
The submission was cast in support of a proposition that Ms Reid did not follow a direction in relation to the use of the computer at work and although no penalty under the Code of Conduct was merited, a warning might well issue and the letter of 4 July 2023 was such a warning.
Looking to the terms of the letter of the letter of 4 July 2023, it is apparent that there was intended some disciplinary outcome, albeit cast in terms of a warning. It certainly was action taken in respect of the employee’s employment. Taking all that into consideration, I accept that there was an administrative action taken by the employer, Service Australia, in respect of Ms Reid’s employment.
The administrative action taken is only relevant if it made a relevant contribution to the ailment suffered. The test High Court has examined the question of causation in the context of a disease injury and stated ‘what is required to meet the causal connection connoted by the exclusionary phrase in s 5A(1) in its application to a disease within s 5A(1)(a) is therefore that the employee would not have suffered that disease, as defined by s 5B(1), if the administrative action had not been taken. That is to say, the causal connection is met if, without the taking of the administrative action, the employee would not have suffered the ailment or aggravation that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment.’[52]
[52] Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43, (2016) 258 CLR 467, 480 [47] per French CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ.
Ms Reid, when she reported her symptoms to her general practitioner, made her claim for compensation and made the initial statement of 27 September 2023 consistently pointed to the effect of the letter of 4 July 2023. Her statement and evidence to the Tribunal emphasised that the ‘misconduct letter now sits on my file for 2 years.’[53] Mr Reid took two brief periods personal leave in response to the interactions with Ms O’Driscoll on 2 and 5 June 2023. Ms Bendall, who had been copied in on all communications with the investigator, also noted in her statement that she ‘kept in close contact with Jayne’ specifically in relation to this issue until there was an outcome on 4 July 2023. Jayne was distressed at the allegation and whilst it did not proceed to a formal investigation, Jayne felt that her questions had not been answered and that she did not understand what she had done, de-spite repeated requests for clarification.’[54]
[53] T9, 33
[54] T13, 62.

Dr Amy Noakes and Dr Synnott both concluded that the investigation and letter of 4 July 2023 were part of the employment matters that did result in the ailment. I accept that applicant’s account and the opinions of the Dr Amy Noakes and Dr Synnott, and find that the warning letter of 4 July 2023 coming on top of the investigative actions did make a significant contribution to the ailment.
The administrative action not reasonable or taken in a reasonable manner
The administrative action taken here was not a specific single event, but an identifiable course of conduct taken by the employer. [55] That action commenced with the notification of Ms Reid by text from her senior manager, Ms Cunningham, followed by the first contact with Ms O’Driscoll on 2 June 2023 and continued up to the letter of warning of 4 July 2023.
[55] Lynch and Comcare [2010] AATA 38; (2010) 114 ALD 394, 420 [99]-[100] per Senior Member R M Creyke and Member P Wilkins.
The stated basis for taking any action was a computer analysis of something called ‘CMDS Logs’ that purport to show that on 28 October 2022, some seven or so months earlier, there had been access from Ms Reid’s computer on her own Medicare record at about 10.09am that day.
It was the respondent’s contention that ‘Ms Reid took a risk by using her work computer while logged in to conduct her personal business. Ms Reid ought to have acknowledged she made an inadvertent error in accessing the myGov Staff Lining Application rather than MyGov external website at work.’[56] The Tribunal was urged to find that the ‘process engaged with was beyond reasonable,’ intending to convey that it was at least a reasonable course of action.[57]
[56] Respondent’s Outline of Closing Submissions, 20 June 2025, [4.1].
[57] Ibid, [4.2]
The question whether this course of action was reasonable is one of fact. It cannot be determined by simply establishing the existence of such a power and declaring any instance of its use to be reasonable. The Tribunal was referred to several authorities on the existence of a power to warn and on the basis of the authorities provided, I accept that there is such a power and that it was exercised in these circumstances. However, that does not make the exercise reasonable. One of the authorities, Briggs v AWH Pty Ltd [2013] FWCFB 3316, was cited in support of the proposition that it ‘need not be demonstrated by the employer that direction issued was the preferable or most appropriate course of action, or in accordance with ‘best practice’, or in the best interests of the parties …’[58] However, that does not really come to grips with what is intended by the word ‘reasonable’ in the context. However, that decision did refer to a High Court decision in R v Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Company Limited; Ex parte Halliday and Sullivan [1938] HCA 44; 60 CLR 601, where an appeal raised the question of the reasonableness of an employer instruction concerning the loading of certain bars on a ship by waterside workers who considered that method adopted, and to which they were directed to follow, was unsafe and consequently refused the direction and adopted a method that had fewer bars per sling load. The workers were convicted of a breach of the direction in the award, an offence under the particular industrial legislation governing the employment. The outcome of that case is not relevant here but Dixon J, in the context of discussing what is reasonable instruction in an employment context stated: ‘But what is reasonable is not to be determined, so to speak, in vacuo. The nature of the employment, the established usages affecting it, the common practices which exist and the general provisions of the instrument, in this case an award, governing the relationship, supply considerations by which the determination of what is reasonable must be controlled.’[59]
[58] Briggs v AWH Pty Ltd [2013] FWCFB 3316 [8]
[59] R v Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Company Limited; Ex parte Halliday and Sullivan [1938] HCA 44; 60 CLR 601, 622.
Ms Reid was notified by Ms O’Driscoll of the ‘Fraud Investigation Branch, Fraud Control and Investigations Division’ of the need to respond to allegations as to her conduct by the telephone call and initial email of 2 June 2023. Ms Reid told the Tribunal that the telephone call was very brief, and that Ms O’Driscoll didn’t give her any, or any sufficient, details about the allegations. Mr Reid said that Ms O’Driscoll was quite rude over the phone, being ‘abrupt’, and refused to give her much information and simply told her that she would send details in an email to Ms Reid. It was only in the subsequent email that Ms Reid learned that the investigation was about the alleged access on 28 October 2022 but there was no explanation as to why it had taken such a long time for the matter to be brought to her attention.
The various emails between Ms O’Driscoll and the applicant were included in the evidence before the Tribunal. In light of the fact that there has never been any allegation of fraud involved in Ms Reid’s case, there has been no explanation given as to why this issue was delegated to an investigator from a branch of Services Australia identified as the ‘Fraud Investigation Branch.’
Ms O’Driscoll had made a statement dated 10 October 2023 which related her recollections of her interactions with Ms Reid.[60] In that statement, Ms O’Driscoll denied being rude to Ms Reid, but she was not available to give evidence to the Tribunal. The respondent called Mr Clinton Willis, her manager, to answer questions about the investigation, though he had no personal dealings with Ms Reid.
[60] T13, 92-94.
The first email from Ms O’Driscoll was brief but it attached a letter dated 2 June 2023 headed ‘Opportunity to respond to allegation’ which alleged ‘potential misconduct in accordance with the Australian Public Service (APS) Code of Conduct (Code) as set out in Section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999.’
Ms Reid sought clarification of the allegation, and it has been a consistent part of her case, acknowledged by the respondent, that she had no clear understanding of what the nature of the alleged misconduct was. In the exchange of emails that day, Ms Reid asked Ms O’Driscoll ‘my inference is that I am not authorised to access my own myGov and Medicare account via the internet whilst at work. Can you please clarify if this is correct. If that is the case, I was unaware that this was not authorised. Can you please provide the actual reference to where this is not authorised and which clause in Section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999 this refers to.’
The answer that came back was: ‘Accessing myGov and requesting a linking code to your Medicare app is NOT misconduct. However, utilising a system that you are logged into whilst at work using your personal details such as your Medicare card number, is not authorised.’ No other questions were answered then, or later.
On 6 June 2023, Ms Reid sent an email to Ms O’Driscoll, the key part of which states, ‘I have no knowledge of how my logon ID (EVY) is recorded as having accessed the CA‐GETPORO (get proof of record ownership) screen with my Medicare card number and I was unaware of the myGov staff linking app until now. Is there any other way this could occur without my knowledge as I am unable to offer an explanation of how this did occur.’ She requested a Teams video meeting with Ms O’Driscoll and have her manager, Ms Bendall present.
No such meeting eventuated, Ms O’Driscoll replying, ‘I am happy to accept your explanation below as your response if you are agreeable and I will complete my review accordingly. You will be advised if the matter is referred to Conduct Standards.’ Ms O’Driscoll sent a short email on 13 June 2023 to Ms Reid advising her that the matter had been referred to the ‘Conduct Standards’ section.
In cross-examination, Ms Reid clarified that she does not have access to the employer’s Medicare system. She doesn’t do any work that requires her to get access to that system. She was asked whether anyone at work would know her logon ID and she replied that the people in her own work area would know her logon ID.
It was put to Ms Reid that she might have attempted to login to myGov but accidentally entered the Medicare system. Ms Reid agreed that was possible, but she restated that this was the very sort of clarification she had hoped someone in Services Australia would explain to her. Ms Reid thought that she was accessing myGov and not Medicare. She had no knowledge of the myGov staff linking application prior to these events.
Ms Reid in cross-examination stated that she had wanted someone to sit down with her at the computer and explain to her what the problem was by physical demonstration. She was asked whether this was some form of education about the process that she was seeking, and she agreed. Ms Reid stated that if she had accidentally done something wrong on 28 October 2022 and had no idea what had been done wrong, she might repeat the error accidentally and she wished to avoid that.
Ms Reid’s supervisor, Fenella Bendall, gave evidence in the hearing concerning her role in relation to the communications with the Fraud Investigation officer. It should be recalled that Ms Reid had approached Ms Bendall for some support in the process as early as 2 June 2023 and from 5 June Ms Bendall was copied in on the emails between Ms Reid and Mc O’Driscoll. She related that at the first contact on this question, Ms Reid told her she was very upset because ‘she was unaware how that occurred’ and worried about the perception that might arise in the minds of her superiors. Ms Bendall told the Tribunal she tried to reassure Ms Reid that it certainly would not affect that way she perceived Ms Reid and that it was not thought by her that Ms Reid had done anything deliberately fraudulent and there was no concern with her performance.
Ms Bendall said Ms Reid repeatedly told her she was unaware of how this event of 22 October 2022 occurred and she was upset that she had not received an adequate explanation of how it did occur. Significantly, Ms Bendall herself stated she too was unable to see how the access occurred. I accept the evidence that Ms Reid and her immediate supervisor were completely unaware of how the access was gained. This remained the case even after emails were received from Ms O’Driscoll.
Mr Clinton Willis, Ms O’Driscoll’s manager, was called to give evidence. Ms Willis explained that he had no role in the misconduct policy outcome but that his unit was confined to investigations. He was able to refer to his computer while giving evidence to explain that the investigation that commenced on 2 June 2023 was due to a ‘referral’ which he stated, was made on 17 November 2022. The referral was simply an automatic report from a program monitoring the computer system logins. He answered the Tribunal’s question as to why a delay of about seven months went by and his answer was to the effect that there was no evidence of any ‘ongoing offending’ or risk of ‘financial fraud’ and so it did not get priority. He stated that the report concerning the access identified by a computer program on 22 October 2022 had the ‘hallmarks’ of ‘no ongoing unauthorised activity’, ‘no ongoing risk’ and ‘no risk of privacy’ concerns since the access was of Ms Reid’s own record. He agreed that a login to myGov from the work computer could inadvertently trigger a response in the Medicare system, though if one used the home computer or smart phone it would not so link.
It is worthwhile understanding that there is not, and has never been, any allegation that Ms Reid saw any Medicare records belonging to any client of Services Australia but her own record. There is not, and has never been, any allegation that Ms Reid altered, erased or in any way interfered with the record. Further, there is not, and never has been, any allegation that she obtained any personal advantage from the alleged login of 28 October 2022, whether by fraudulent action or otherwise. There is no other allegation suggested by the employer of any other unauthorised login by Ms Reid, either before or after the alleged login of 28 October 2022.
On the evidence presented, I find that there was at no time any suggestion that Ms Reid was refusing direction that might form the occasion for the employer to take any disciplinary action, Code of Conduct action or any warning. The respondent’s submission accepted that no Code of Conduct sanction was considered apt for the situation. In fact, there never was any basis for suggesting, as was repeatedly done, any conduct alleged that could warrant such action.
The circumstances of this employment, the known absence of any ongoing unauthorised access, risk of financial fraud, absence of repetition of access, absence of any persons records other than Ms Reid’s records, the propensity for inadvertent access, all point to the absence of any grounds to suggest the need for any inquiry by the Fraud Investigation team.
There was not the remotest suggestion of any real wrongdoing on Ms Reid’s part that was worthy of a warning, one which was to stay on her record for two years.
It was pointed out that Ms Reid had attended a number of relevant training courses over the years and that she would be conscious of her obligations. Indeed, Ms Reid gave an answer that in a general sense she was. However, she had no idea how the logging to the myGov site would result in an unauthorised access. The same was frankly admitted by her own supervisor. I was not taken to the content of any of these training sessions that would enable me to determine what relevance they had to the outcome of this case. I refuse to speculate on their content, other than to say, that training courses, in a general sense, are always subject to refreshment from time to time.
The respondent’s own closing submissions accept that the access of 22 October 2022 was ‘inadvertent’ and ‘accidental’. There was no evidence of Ms Reid ‘taking a risk’ in her inadvertent and accidental access of her own personal record on 28 October 2022. There is no evidence of any conscious refusal to obey direction, given directly, or any repeated course of inappropriate access of the system. I find that there was reasonable basis for any ‘misconduct investigation’ by the Fraud Investigation Branch or any letter of warning to this employee who has performed a difficult and stressful job without any blemish in her record of performance.
It was for the respondent, which alleges reasonableness of administrative action, to prove this assertion. What the respondent has not done is provide evidence from the one person responsible for making this decision, Ms Lindie McKay, Acting Director, Conduct Standards, Workplace Relations Division, the author of the 4 July 2023 warning letter. There was no statement as to why that letter was thought apt in the circumstances. I do not accept that the mere presentation of the 4 July 2023 is sufficient justification for the action taken.
The circumstances that have been presented to me in evidence point to a shortfall in the awareness of computer systems access, whether because that awareness was never present or because of the lapse of time and the unfamiliarity with aspects of the computer programs at work. That goes for both Ms Reid and her immediate supervisor. A warning was not a reasonable response. Identification of the computer system awareness and adequate remedial instruction was all that could be said to be reasonable in the circumstances.
Accordingly, I find that the administrative action taken was not reasonable. The disease is not thereby excluded from the field of compensation, and I find that Ms Reid suffered an adjustment disorder which is an injury for which Comcare is liable to pay compensation pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act.
Finally, since the injury found is a disease for the purposes of the definition of ‘injury’ in section 5A(1), it is worthwhile identifying the date of the injury for the purposes of section 7(4) of the SRC Act. That provision requires the identification of the first instance of either incapacity for work, impairment or the first medical treatment.
The injury was contributed to by a range of employment factors which cumulatively worked to cause her to cease work on and from 21 September 2023 with a medical certificate identifying the, then provisional, diagnosis of adjustment disorder. However, it was a week prior to that, on 14 September 2023 that Ms Reid consulted Dr Amy Noakes advising her of the stress at work and the fact that she had made an appointment with the psychologist through the EAP program to occur a few days later, that there were sufficient symptoms of the deteriorating condition to warrant initial medical treatment. It is not to the point that there was no diagnosis at that stage of ‘adjustment disorder’. There were sufficient signs that Ms Reid had a condition outside the bounds of normal mental functioning to warrant that medical attention and that also prompted Ms Bendall to arrange modification of duties to avoid further front of house referrals which had contributed significantly to Ms Reid’s distress.
Hence, the date of injury will be 14 September 2023, the date of first medical treatment.
Dates of hearing:       19 and 20 June 2025
Applicant:                   Ms Jayne Reid, self-represented
Respondent:              Ms Sarah Wright, instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor