Application of the reasonable administrative action (RAA) exclusion under the Safety, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) serves as a critical consideration for determining workers' compensation eligibility under the Comcare scheme. The exclusion applies to injuries that result from reasonable administrative action taken reasonably in relation to employment. 

Section 5A(1) of the SRC provides that an injury is not compensable where it is a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee's employment.

The words "as a result of", mean a causal connection between the injury and reasonable administrative action must be established. The High Court clarified this causal connection test in Comcare v Martin, guiding decision-makers on determining the casual requirements and factors needed to apply the exclusion appropriately.

1. Assessing the presence of an ailment or aggravation of an ailment

The RAA exclusion is frequently applied in cases involving psychological injuries, which generally fall under the SRC Act’s definition of “disease”. The SRC Act defines “disease” as an ailment or aggravation of an ailment substantially contributed to by employment, while “ailment” includes physical or mental disorders, defects, or morbid conditions. Decision-makers must evaluate medical evidence to confirm whether the claimed condition qualifies as an ailment or aggravation of an ailment.

2. Assessing the significant employment contribution requirement

For a condition to qualify as a “disease", employment must contribute to it to a significant degree -defined as a contribution “substantially more than material.” To meet this threshold, decision-makers must consider:

• The employment-related causative factors impacting the disease;
• The presence of non-employment-related factors; and 
• The relative impact of these employment and non-employment factors on the disease's development.

Medical evidence will often be important in establishing causative factors and their significance in the disease's development.

3. Evaluating whether employment actions qualify as reasonable administrative action

After determining that employment significantly contributed to the disease, decision-makers must assess whether the causative employment factors include reasonable administrative action. This involves verifying whether each action was:

• Administrative: Pertaining to the employee’s duties or instructions on how to perform them;
• Reasonable: Objectively assessed based on established practices and workplace norms;
• Taken in a reasonable manner: Evaluated by objective standards; and
• Related to the employee's employment (directed specifically to the employee).

Reasonableness is judged on a case-by-case basis, using an objective test. The test of reasonableness in section 5A is not prescriptive and there may be more than one way an administrative action may be undertaken. The test is whether the action was reasonable in the circumstances, not whether it could have been taken in a more reasonable way. 

4. Determining if the injury or disease was “suffered as a result of” reasonable administrative action

The exclusion under section 5A(1) only applies if the disease or injury was genuinely suffered “as a result of” reasonable administrative action. To make this determination, decision-makers should consider whether:

• The injury or disease would have been suffered without the reasonable administrative action;
• The impact of non-administrative and non-employment factors on the injury or disease; and
• Employment’s contribution to the injury or disease remains significant in the absence of reasonable administrative action.

Factors influencing this assessment include the proximity between the reasonable administrative action and the injury or disease onset, the impact of work-related and non-work-related factors, and whether employment would still significantly contribute to the injury or disease without the administrative action.

Buck v Comcare [2012] AATA 327

The employer encouraged the employee to sign a draft job plan that included duties the employee felt exceeded their abilities, leading the employee to make a claim for mixed anxiety and depression.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer’s actions constituted reasonable administrative action, as they pertained to the employer-employee relationship.

Kennedy v Comcare [2013] AATA 696

Following a period of sick leave, the employer required the employee to provide medical certificates to process their sick leave entitlements. The employee sought support from the employer to prevent financial hardship. The employer agreed to send a representative to the employee’s home to collect the medical certificates and discuss potential support options. The employee filed a claim for adjustment disorder, alleging bullying and harassment at work.

The Tribunal determined that the employer’s actions were reasonable administrative action, as the home visit was connected to the employer-employee relationship.

Applying the RAA exclusion under the SRC Act provides employer's with protection for workplace injuries sustained as a result of reasonable administrative action which is fundamental to the management of employees and operations. 

Decision-makers must carefully assess causation, reasonableness, and the presence of employment contribution to determine if an injury genuinely “suffered as a result of” reasonable administrative action falls outside the scheme.

Importantly, employers who document and justify their administrative decisions with clarity, consistency, and fairness are better positioned to successfully rely on the reasonable administrative action exclusion for claims made under Comcare.