Sedaitis and Comcare

This matter concerned an application by Mrs Hanna Sedaitis for review of a decision by Comcare to affirm its determination that it was not liable to pay her compensation. Mrs Sedaitis had lodged a claim for compensation for a psychological injury, stating it arose from bullying and harassment by a senior officer. Comcare initially denied liability, and upon reconsideration, affirmed that decision. Mrs Sedaitis then applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of Comcare's affirmed decision.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mrs Sedaitis's diagnosed "major depressive disorder, single episode," which Comcare conceded was contributed to by her employment, constituted an "injury" for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the disease was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of her employment. If it was, the disease would be excluded from the definition of "injury" under s 5A of the SRC Act, and Comcare would not be liable for compensation.

The Tribunal, presided over by Senior Member Dr James Popple, found that the meeting Mrs Sedaitis attended on 11 September 2013 with two other ACT Health staff constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of her employment. The parties agreed that Mrs Sedaitis suffered her disease as a result of this meeting. Applying the principles of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act, which excludes diseases suffered as a result of such action from the definition of "injury," the Tribunal concluded that Comcare was not liable to pay compensation.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decision.