Walsh and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Walsh against a decision of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (SRCC) which affirmed a determination by Comcare to reject Mr. Walsh's claim for compensation. Mr. Walsh sought compensation for a psychological injury allegedly sustained during his employment with the Australian Federal Police. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with reviewing the SRCC's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Walsh's claimed psychological injury was a 'disease' within the meaning of section 5 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (the Act). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the condition alleged by Mr. Walsh was a disease that was contributed to, to the requisite degree, by his employment.

Senior Member A Ward AM considered the evidence presented, including medical reports and Mr. Walsh's own testimony. The Tribunal applied the principles established in cases concerning the definition of 'disease' under the Act, which generally requires a pathological bodily response. The Tribunal found that the symptoms described by Mr. Walsh, while causing him distress and impacting his functioning, did not constitute a recognised pathological condition or disease in the medical sense. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that Mr. Walsh had not established that he suffered from a 'disease' as defined by the Act, and consequently, his employment could not have contributed to such a disease.

The Tribunal affirmed the SRCC's decision, dismissing Mr. Walsh's appeal.