Zoumaras and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for compensation by Mr Zoumaras against Comcare. The applicant sought compensation for an adjustment disorder with features of depression and anxiety, which he alleged arose from his employment with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Comcare relied on the exclusionary provision in section 5A of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act), arguing that the applicant's condition arose from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment. The decision was heard by B J Illingworth SM.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had suffered an "injury" as defined by the SRC Act, and if so, whether that injury was excluded from compensation by operation of section 5A of the SRC Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the administrative actions taken by the applicant's managers, Ms Entwistle and Mr Pennuto, constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

The court found that the applicant was an unreliable historian, perceiving events incorrectly and interpreting communications with suspicion and mistrust, which were not founded on a sound factual basis. While acknowledging the applicant's concerns regarding certain assessments in 2017, the court was satisfied that these were a consequence of his suspicion and mistrust of management, rather than unreasonable administrative action. The court was not satisfied that the applicant suffered from a psychological illness prior to commencing carers leave in April 2019, noting that his complaints to medical practitioners only commenced after receiving a referee report in September 2019. The court concluded that the applicant suffered from an adjustment disorder in consequence of receiving this referee report.

The court affirmed the decision under review. It found that the administrative actions taken by the ATO management were reasonable and conducted in a reasonable manner, thus enlivening the exclusionary provision of the SRC Act. Consequently, the applicant's adjustment disorder did not constitute a compensable injury under the Act.