TRGD and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant for review of decisions made by a delegate of Comcare. The Applicant sought acceptance of liability under section 14 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) for a range of infectious and parasitic diseases, and associated sequelae, allegedly contracted during his employment with a Commonwealth agency in a remote region of Western Australia. These conditions included bartonella, strongyloides, Murray Valley encephalitis, Kunjin/West Nile virus, Ross River virus reinfection, post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome/fibromyalgia, post-infectious reactive spondyloarthritis with enthesitis, stress and anxiety, low testosterone (hypogonadism), and sexual dysfunction. Comcare accepted that the Applicant suffered from ailments but contended that none were contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant's claimed conditions constituted "ailments" or "diseases" for the purposes of the Act, and crucially, whether these conditions were contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment. The scope of the Tribunal's review was also a key issue, particularly concerning whether it had jurisdiction to consider conditions not specified in the Applicant's initial claims, such as insomnia, headaches, vitamin D deficiency, and somatoform/somatisation disorder. The Tribunal also considered the extent to which it could rely on medical literature and whether to exercise its discretion to award costs.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the Applicant undoubtedly suffered from chronic ailments. However, it found that it lacked jurisdiction to decide several of the ailments for which compensation was sought, as they had not been included in the Applicant's original claims. For the conditions of strongyloides and post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome, the Tribunal accepted liability, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that these conditions were contributed to, to a significant degree, by the Applicant's employment. For the remaining conditions, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not support the requisite degree of contribution from employment. The Tribunal also declined to exercise its discretion to make a costs order.