Williams and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against a decision by Comcare to deny liability for a claim for "reactive depression". The applicant had been acting in a role for two years and was subsequently denied an interview or feedback on her application for that position, leading to a period off work. Comcare denied liability on the basis that the applicant had not suffered an ailment.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had suffered an "ailment" or an aggravation of an existing ailment, as defined by section 4(1) of the relevant Act. This definition includes "any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development)". Comcare accepted that if an ailment was found, it was contributed to to a significant degree by the applicant's employment, thus making the existence of an ailment the threshold question.

The Tribunal considered the medical evidence, noting the limited and uncross-examined reports of Dr Mawer for the applicant, and the detailed report and testimony of Dr Ng for Comcare. Applying the principles from *Comcare v Mooi*, the Tribunal focused on whether the applicant's condition fell outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour. The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish that the applicant suffered from a condition that could be characterised as a compensable ailment or an aggravation of an existing ailment.

Consequently, as the threshold question of whether the applicant suffered an ailment was answered in the negative, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to consider the remaining issues of significant contribution by employment or reasonable administrative action. The decision under review, which affirmed Comcare's denial of liability, was therefore affirmed.