Squires and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned a claim for workers' compensation under section 14 of the Act by the applicant, Mr. Squires, against his employer, Comcare. The applicant alleged he suffered a psychological ailment, specifically a generalised anxiety disorder, which was aggravated by his employment as a Customer Services Operator at Centrelink. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant's employment contributed to his condition to a significant degree, and if so, whether the condition was excluded by section 5A of the Act as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. The case was heard by Senior Member A Poljak.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant suffered an ailment or the aggravation of an ailment. Secondly, if an ailment or aggravation was established, whether the applicant's employment contributed to it to a significant degree. Finally, the court had to consider whether any such work-related ailment or aggravation was excluded from compensation under section 5A of the Act, which pertains to reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the applicant's employment.

Senior Member Poljak found that the applicant suffered from a long-standing generalised anxiety disorder. However, the Senior Member was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant's employment was a significant contributing factor to the aggravation of his condition. This conclusion was based on a lack of contemporaneous evidence supporting the applicant's claims of frequent abusive and threatening calls, and inconsistencies in his own account. The Senior Member noted that the applicant's employment records did not contain any reports of such incidents, and the applicant himself expressed enjoyment of his job and did not seek to change his duties. Medical evidence suggested that while employment may have exacerbated his difficulties, his non-work life experiences were likely more significant in the development of his illness.

Consequently, the Senior Member affirmed the reviewable decisions dated 9 October 2015 and 22 March 2016, meaning the applicant's claim for compensation was not successful.