Woodward and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for compensation by Ms Woodward against Comcare. The dispute centred on whether Ms Woodward was entitled to compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) for an ailment she suffered. The decision was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Woodward's ailment constituted an "injury" for the purposes of the Act. Specifically, it needed to consider whether the ailment was contributed to by her employment and, crucially, whether it was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of her employment.

The Tribunal found that a direction given to Ms Woodward not to "cherry pick" her duties constituted administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. This action was considered a form of counselling regarding her performance of duties under section 5A(2)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the exclusionary provision in section 5A(1) of the Act was engaged, meaning Ms Woodward's ailment was not considered an "injury" for the purposes of the Act.

As a result of this determination, Ms Woodward was not entitled to compensation under section 14 of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision dated 27 October 2016.