ZZRP and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant to review a decision by Comcare, which affirmed an earlier decision denying compensation. The Applicant claimed to have suffered an anxiety state, first noticed on 27 April 2011, arising from workplace difficulties with a new manager appointed in March 2011. The Applicant sought compensation for medical treatment and for incapacity for work. The proceedings were before Deputy J W Constance P of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Comcare was liable to compensate the Applicant for medical treatment obtained on or since 20 May 2014, and whether the Applicant had been incapacitated for work as a result of compensable injuries at any time since that date. These issues required the Tribunal to consider the definition of "injury" under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth), specifically whether the Applicant's condition constituted a disease or an aggravation of a pre-existing condition arising out of or in the course of employment, and whether it was a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the Applicant's history and the medical evidence. It found that the Applicant was an unreliable historian, noting that medical professionals had reported significant minimisation of his history and reluctance to provide a complete account. The Tribunal was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Applicant suffered from psychiatric conditions prior to the appointment of his new manager, citing reports of domestic tensions in October 2010, a hospitalisation in December 2011, and the opinions of medical experts. The Tribunal concluded that the workplace incident did not make a significant contribution to the condition suffered by the Applicant, applying principles similar to those in *Hannaford*.

The Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decision. The Applicant's application to the Tribunal to review Comcare's decision was dismissed.