Renouf and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirming a decision by Comcare. The applicant suffered from an anxiety disorder and depression, which was initially caused by their employment. The central dispute revolved around whether Comcare's liability to pay compensation for the applicant's condition had ceased.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant continued to require medical treatment for the accepted injury under section 16 of the *Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth), and whether the applicant continued to suffer incapacity as a result of that injury under section 19 of the Act. Comcare did not seek to re-open the question of initial liability under section 14.

The Tribunal considered the principle that an employer must take an employee as they find them, meaning that an incapacity caused by psychological symptoms precipitated by a compensable injury is itself compensable, even if the physical effects of the injury resolve. This principle acknowledges that an individual's pre-existing predispositions are relevant to the legal causation of their incapacity. Despite medical opinions suggesting the applicant was over-reacting to events, one consultant psychiatrist opined that the applicant's mental state was directly related to their compensable condition. However, the Tribunal ultimately found that there was no liability to pay compensation under section 19, and consequently, no ongoing work-related permanent impairment under section 24.

The decision under review was affirmed.