Stewart and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for compensation under the *Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act) by an applicant against Comcare. The applicant sought compensation for an adjustment disorder with anxious mood, alleging it constituted a 'disease' as defined by the Act, and that this condition was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment. A key dispute revolved around whether the applicant's condition arose as a result of 'reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner' in respect of his employment, which would disentitle him to compensation.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant suffered from an 'ailment' or an 'aggravation' of an 'ailment' as defined in section 4 of the SRC Act, and if so, whether this constituted a 'disease' under section 5B of the Act. Crucially, the court had to consider whether this 'disease' was suffered as a result of 'reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner' with respect to the applicant's employment, and specifically whether a meeting on 15 January 2016 constituted such 'administrative action'.

The court's reasoning drew upon established principles regarding the distinction between 'administrative action' and 'operational decisions' within the context of the SRC Act. Citing *Long v Comcare* and *Comcare v Drinkwater*, the court noted that 'administrative action' must be employee-specific and go beyond the regulation of normal employment incidences. Actions forming part of ordinary work duties, routine, or changes to routine are generally not considered 'reasonable administrative action'. The court considered the applicant's email to his supervisor notifying him of an urgent absence due to his mother's care needs, and the subsequent phone call, in light of these principles. The decision ultimately set aside the reviewable decision.