Join our

mailing list.

Keep up to date with our latest insights.

Case Summary

Determining employer liability for psychiatric conditions

DJVD and Comcare (Compensation) [2020] AATA 4614

When determining liability for an injury or condition (whether primary or secondary), the question is whether the injury or condition was significantly contributed to by the worker’s employment.

Published:

Share

Determining an employer’s contribution to the injury or condition considers substantially more than the material contribution. It also takes the following factors into account:

  1. the duration of the employment;
  2. the nature of, and particular tasks involved in, the employment;
  3. any predisposition of the employee to the ailment or aggravation;
  4. any activities of the employee not related to the employment; and
  5. any other matters affecting the employee’s health.

In the case of DJVD and Comcare:

  • A worker developed a secondary psychiatric condition after she suffered two soft tissue injuries at work. She retired years later by reason of incapacity.
  • After her retirement, medical evidence revealed her second soft tissue injury was caused by a temporary aggravation of an underlying degenerative process.
  • Comcare was cleared of liability for this injury and sought, unsuccessfully, to clear itself of liability for the secondary psychiatric condition.
  • The worker possessed a number of critical and relevant vulnerabilities that predisposed her to the development of a psychiatric condition, including existing anxiety, hospital admissions, and a history of sexual assault. She required repetitive treatment for these concerns.
  • The AATA found Comcare was still liable for the secondary psychiatric condition as the worker’s longstanding pain stemmed from her soft tissue injuries, and the impact those injuries had on her work and roles were clearly factors in the development of her psychiatric condition.
  • The AATA drew a distinction between the lesser form of psychiatric condition the worker was predisposed to and the more serious condition she suffered after her work-related physical injuries, which ultimately took away her ability to continue in employment.

Read the full case decision: DJVD and Comcare (Compensation) [2020] AATA 4614

Share

Lessons for Employers

  1. Mental health effects, secondary to an injury, do not necessarily cease when the physical injury is resolved.
  2. A worker’s predisposition to the development of a psychiatric condition does not preclude an employer’s liability if a work-related injury transforms their condition into one which is more serious.

Stay updated with our Friday Workplace Briefing

Every Friday at 10:30am, join us online to hear the critical news and developments that affect your workplace. We’ll keep it simple, pragmatic and to 30 minutes.

Have a question or need advice?

Our team are here to provide tailored advice for your business and workforce.

Principal Lawyer and Head of Workplace

Managing Principal - Victoria