Tierney and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Paul Tierney against a decision by Comcare to reject his claim for compensation for a psychological injury. Mr Tierney, a long-serving employee of the Department of Human Services (now Services Australia), alleged that his condition arose from the introduction of a compulsory quality online checker role and the associated proficiency assessment process. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Tierney's diagnosed condition constituted a "disease" for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) and, if so, whether it was caused by reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, which would exclude him from compensation.

The Tribunal was asked to consider two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether Mr Tierney suffered from a "disease" as defined by sections 5A(1) and 5B of the Act. Secondly, if a disease was established, whether it arose from reasonable administrative action undertaken in a reasonable manner, thereby engaging the exclusionary provision in section 5A(1) of the Act. The parties agreed that Mr Tierney suffered from a condition significantly contributed to by his employment, but disputed whether the specific action causing the injury was administrative or operational.

The Tribunal found that Mr Tierney suffered from a major depressive disorder with anxious distress, a condition accepted as a "disease" under section 5B of the Act, which was significantly contributed to by his employment, particularly the Quality Online (QOL) proficiency assessment process. However, the Tribunal determined that the requirement for Mr Tierney to undertake this assessment from 14 May 2020 constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. This conclusion was based on evidence that the claim of unfairness was not substantiated, the supervisor acted supportively, and Mr Tierney declined offers of assistance. Consequently, the exclusionary provision of section 5A(1) applied.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, determining that Mr Tierney was excluded from any form of compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* due to the finding that the action of requiring him to undertake the QOL proficiency assessment was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.