RVQZ and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned a claim for compensation by RVQZ, the ex-husband of the deceased employee FSXP, on behalf of their two children. The dispute centred on whether FSXP's death from chronic liver disease, related to alcohol abuse, constituted an "injury" under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act) for which Comcare was liable to pay compensation to dependants and for funeral expenses. The claim was heard by Dr James Popple, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether FSXP suffered a "disease" for the purposes of the SRC Act, and if so, whether this disease was contributed to, to a significant degree, by her employment. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if FSXP's pre-existing ailments of alcoholism and liver disease were aggravated, and if any such aggravation was significantly contributed to by her employment. The Tribunal also considered whether, if an aggravation constituted a disease, FSXP's death resulted from that disease within the meaning of section 7(5) of the SRC Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Comcare accepted FSXP suffered from alcoholism and liver disease, and that these ailments resulted in her death, the applicant did not establish that her employment significantly contributed to the initial ailments. The applicant's case relied on the argument that FSXP's employment significantly contributed to an *aggravation* of these ailments. However, the Tribunal found that neither the employer's alleged failure to take certain steps nor the alleged bullying and harassment by a supervisor significantly contributed to any aggravation of FSXP's liver disease. Consequently, the aggravation was not a "disease" as defined by section 5B(1) of the SRC Act, and therefore not an "injury" for which compensation was payable.

As the Tribunal determined that FSXP did not suffer an "injury" as defined by the SRC Act, Comcare was not liable to pay compensation to the dependants under section 17 or for funeral expenses under section 18. The decision under review, which affirmed Comcare's determination of non-liability, was therefore affirmed.