Credibility Under Fire: Tribunal Rejects Compensation Due to Reasonable Administrative Action 

Date: November 19, 2024

Martin and Comcare [2024] AATA 3313 (2 September 2024) 

Key Points:

• Mr Martin claimed compensation for psychological injury as a result of a series of workplace issues. Liability was declined on the basis that the condition arises out of reasonable administrative action.  

• The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision. The Tribunal found that Mr Martin did not suffer a psychological injury outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour for the purpose of the SRC Act, and that the workplace issues did constitute administrative actions take in a reasonable manner. In reaching this decision, the Tribunal made remarks on the applicant’s credibility and reliability and the advocacy nature of the evidence from his witness.  

Background:

Matthew Martin (applicant) claimed compensation for “work related stress”. The applicant alleged a series of work issues between himself and his supervisors which culminated in a “cataclysmic work meeting”.  

Liability was declined by Comcare pursuant to section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the SRC Act) in respect of “aggravation of bipolar disorder”, on the basis that the condition arises out of reasonable administrative action.  

The Law:

Section 14(1) of the SRC Act provides:  

subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment. 

A disease is defined under section 5B of the SRC Act as an ailment, or an aggravation of an ailment, which has been contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment. 

An Ailment is defined under section 4 of the SRC Act as any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition. 

Section 5A(1) of the SRC Act indicates that where a disease is suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of an employee’s employment, no liability exists for that condition. 

The issues:  

In determining the Application, the Tribunal was required to consider:  

1. whether the applicant has suffered an ‘ailment’ as defined in the SRC Act;  

1. if so, whether that condition was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the applicant’s employment, pursuant to section 5B of the SRC Act;  

1. if so, whether liability for the condition is excluded pursuant to section 5A(1) of the SRC Act, on the basis that it was suffered as a result of reasonable. 

The evidence:  

The Tribunal outlined the applicant’s pre-existing diagnosis of bipolar disorder, his known drug related incidents, and the series of workplace issues which culminated in a “cataclysmic work meeting”. The Tribunal recounted the different versions of the meeting and the applicant’s action immediately following the meeting.  

Due to the applicant’s extensive history of interactions in the workplace and exaggeration of the directions placed on him, the Tribunal considered the applicant showed difficulties interpreting the actions of others and predicting the effect of his own factions, and therefore approached the applicant’s evidence “with caution”.  

The Tribunal found Mr Parmeter, the applicant’s supervisor, an impressive witness as he was calm and able to produce relevant events in a clear and precise manner. The Tribunal found Mr Parmeter’s evidence more persuasive and accepted his version of events.  

The Tribunal accepted that “cataclysmic work meeting” happened in a meeting room with very short notice, and that the applicant was upset, was raising his voice and ignoring part of Mr Parmeter’s questions, while Mr Parmeter was calm throughout the interaction and gave the applicant clear direction.  

Conclusion: 

The Tribunal addressed the medical evidence and made some useful observations to the effect that not all work-related stress will lead to an ailment that attracts compensation. The Tribunal reviewed the medical evidence and concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicant was suffering from any mental condition outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour and if he was, that it was a result of his longstanding bipolar disorder, not contributed to by his employment.  

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the statutory requirement of ‘injury’.  

Despite this, the Tribunal still considered whether the reasonable administrative action exclusion applied, and found that it did. The Tribunal was satisfied that the meeting was administrative action directed to the applicant’s employment itself and that it was reasonable and taken in a reasonable manner.  

Finally, the Tribunal considered an “alternative theory” put by the applicant’s treating psychologist. This was given short shrift, with the Tribunal describing it as “little more than speculation” and the psychologist was “a highly positioned advocate for the applicant rather than a dispassionate expert trying to assist the Tribunal”.  

Lessons Learnt:

While “reasonable administrative action” matters mostly turn on factual evidence which rely heavily on witnesses’ credibility and reliability, it may also turn on medical evidence in establishing whether the claimant suffers a psychological injury for the purpose of the SRC Act. It is therefore crucial to have thorough review of both factual and medical evidence, thoughtful investigation strategies and experienced advocacy for the success of a matter.  

Contact:

Download PDF here:  Martin and Comcare [2024] AATA 3313 (2 September 2024) 

« Back to Insights