XKGN and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned two applications before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, brought by the Applicant, XKGN, against the Respondent, Comcare. The dispute centred on whether the Applicant was entitled to compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act) for a psychological condition, specifically an adjustment reaction with anxious mood, which she alleged arose out of or in the course of her employment with the Department of Human Services (DHS). The Respondent had previously denied compensation, and the Applicant sought review of these decisions.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant's condition constituted an "injury" within the meaning of the SRC Act, and if so, whether it was significantly contributed to by her employment. Furthermore, for one of the applications, the Tribunal had to consider whether the Applicant suffered a permanent impairment of at least 10% as a result of this injury, which would entitle her to compensation for non-economic loss. The issue of whether the injury was caused by reasonable administrative action was initially raised by the Respondent but was formally abandoned during the hearing.

The Tribunal considered extensive documentary and viva voce evidence, including reports from several medical experts. It found that the Applicant, a dedicated public servant, experienced increased workload and stress due to agency mergers and a particularly difficult case involving threats and concerns for her safety. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's adjustment reaction with anxious mood was an injury that arose out of or in the course of her employment, or to which her employment contributed to a significant degree.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the reviewable decisions in both applications. In substitution, it found that the Applicant was entitled to compensation for medical treatment and weekly payments due to incapacity for work from 23 June 2017. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the Applicant suffered a permanent impairment of 10% as a result of the injury, entitling her to compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant's costs in both proceedings.