Win against Comcare with the worker having liability accepted before the Tribunal

Angela Sdrinis Legal recently successfully ran a case against Comcare with the worker having liability accepted before the Tribunal: KZBX and Comcare (Compensation) [2024] AATA 1267 (22 May 2024). Acceptance of liability under Section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) for both the workers physical and psychological injuries.

Our client was employed as an APS4 Service Liaison Officer with Services Australia. Our client was working from home during COVID-19 when she sustained injuries consistent with a high-impact collision when she was away from her home, while out walking and listening to a learning and development podcast. It is important to note that employees are assigned a time during work hours to engage in ‘Learning and Development’ (L&D).

Ambulance Victoria attended the scene to provide medical assistance before taking our client to the hospital for immediate treatment.

Due to the incident our client sustained injuries including fractured ribs, fractured left leg patella, fractured left wrist, post-traumatic stress disorder and aggravation of major depressive disorder with anxious distress.

Comcare denied liability for our client’s injuries on the following basis:

• Our client was temporarily absent from her place of work (her home) at the time of the Incident, but that temporary absence was not approved by her employer and our client at no time sought approval to conduct her L&D time away from her place of work.

• The presence of our client at the place at which she sustained her physical injuries was not associated with her employment. Her presence at that place was neither approved by her employer nor necessary in any way to undertake L&D activities.

Both parties had medical experts provide opinion on both the physical and psychological injuries, proceeded by a number of lay witnesses that provided opinion that went towards the issues surrounding the connection between our client’s injuries and her employment with Services Australia.

The decision is important in analysing the nexus between a client’s injury and whether said injury arose out of the course of employment. In this case it is complicated by work from home directives issued by the State Government of Victoria during the COVID-19 Pandemic, and whether employment-related activities performed away from the office are deemed as injuries under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).