SDCS and COMCARE (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by Comcare, the respondent, which determined that the applicant's psychological injury was excluded from compensation under section 5A(2) of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The applicant, a Service Officer with the Department of Human Services, claimed to have suffered anxiety and depression as a result of stress, customer aggression, and incidents at work. Comcare's delegate had adopted the reasoning of a report which concluded that the applicant's injury was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative actions taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment, thereby triggering the exclusionary provisions of section 5A(2).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's psychological injury was excluded from compensation by section 5A(2) of the Act, which excludes injuries suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of an employee's employment. The court was required to determine if the evidence supported Comcare's finding that the applicant's injury was a consequence of such actions and, if so, whether this exclusion applied.

The court reasoned that while Comcare's decision identified reasonable administrative action as having contributed significantly to the applicant's condition, section 5A(1) of the Act specifically refers to a "disease", "injury" or "aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease)". The court found that the decision under review, which stated that the injury was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative actions and therefore excluded by section 5A(2), would be set aside. The court noted that the parties had primarily led evidence and made submissions regarding the threshold issue of whether there was an entitlement to compensation under section 14(1) of the Act, and that Comcare was to decide any further entitlements under other sections of Part II of the Act.

The decision under review was set aside. The court indicated that it was not making a finding regarding any earlier conditions or potential false representations by the applicant, as there was insufficient evidence to support such findings. The matter was to proceed with Comcare determining any entitlements under the relevant sections of Part II of the Act.