1. 2025-4711: The reviewable decision of 2 June 2025 is set aside and in substitution the Tribunal decides:

(a) Mr Bayer suffers from a generalised anxiety disorder, separate and distinct from other psychiatric disorders, that entitles him to compensation pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act.

(b) The generalised anxiety disorder results in impairment that is likely to continue indefinitely.

(c) The matter is remitted to the respondent for assessment of the degree of impairment and non-economic loss pursuant to sections 24 and 27 of the SRC Act.

......................[SGD]..................................................

General Member M. Carey

IMPAIRMENT - whether employee suffering a further psychiatric injury separate from other compensable psychiatric injuries - consideration of medical evidence, circumstances and development of various injuries - consideration of multiple injuries as opposed to multiple diagnoses of single injury - factual findings made - assessment of impairment - consideration of the approved Guide Table 5.1 for psychiatric injuries - findings of impairment made - where evidence shortfall matters within jurisdiction remitted to Comcare - prior psychiatric impairment assessment not in accordance with law but decision not before Tribunal.

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)

Canute v Comcare [2006] HCA 47; (2006) 226 CLR 535

Eaves v Blaenchlydach Colliery Company Limited [1909] UKLawRpKQB 82; [1909] 2 KB 73

Fellows v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (2009) 240 CLR 28

Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439

Robson and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2012] AATA 809 Robson v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2013] FCAFC 101; (2013) 214 FCR 1 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Kotevski [2013] FCA 27; (2013) 209 FCR 558

American Medical Association's Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 5th Edition 2001 (AMA 5).

American Psychiatry Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. Fifth Edition (DSM-5)

American Psychiatry Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR)

International Classification of Diseases and Injuries (ICD-9-CM 2nd Edition)

Jurisdictional Policy Advice No. 2014/05 Assessing permanent impairment where multiple injuries are involved. Comcare 1 May 2014

1. Mr Brendan Bayer has sustained multiple injuries relating to his service with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for which he is entitled to compensation pursuant to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC Act).

1. In dispute in the present two review applications, is Mr Bayer's entitlement to lump sum compensation for permanent impairment pursuant to sections 24 and 27 of the SRC Act. The two claims for this form of compensation are expressed to be for injuries described as 'chronic adjustment disorder' and in a separate claim, 'social anxiety disorder' and 'generalised anxiety disorder'.

1. This is not the first claim for lump sum compensation made by Mr Bayer. Comcare has previously determined the degree of impairment of injury in accordance with the Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment (the approved Guide) and paid lump sum compensation by determination dated 1 April 2022 representing a degree of impairment of 50 percent in respect of psychiatric impairment due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD), assessed in accordance with Table

5.1 of the approved Guide.1 More will be said about this determination in the decision that follows.

1. Mr Bayer has also been awarded compensation following a determination dated 27 March 2023, for impairment in respect of a neck injury sustained on 16 June 2011 and for which he underwent C5/6 and C6/7 anterior disc replacement surgery in May 2018. His impairment was assessed at the level of 28 percent, in accordance with Table 9.15 of the approved Guide.2

1. In the present review, there are two applications before this Tribunal:

1 T56, 587-593. References commencing with the letter 'T' are references to Tribunal documents that are lodged with the Tribunal pursuant to a Notice to the Respondent pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act), in operation when the application commenced. They are generally known as 'Tribunal documents', sequentially numbered, with subsequent page references.

On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.

(a) In matter number 2024/5595, the reviewable decision of 26 June 2024 denied liability to pay lump sum compensation for impairment from an 'adjustment disorder' on the ground that this was essentially the same disorder that had previously been compensated in the determination of 1 April 2022.3 Mr Bayer had made a claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to sections 24 and 27 in respect of 'Chronic Adjustment Disorder' on 7 October 2022 together with responses to a 'Non-Economic Loss Questionnaire' completed by himself and his treating psychiatrist, Dr George Jacobs.4 Comcare's decisionmaker reasoned that the impairments from the claimed 'adjustment disorder' were 'the same as those that were previously considered and compensated for your compensable PTSD and major depressive disorder. As there is no impairment that has not been previously compensated, it follows that you have not sustained an impairment that is at least 10% WPI as a result of an adjustment disorder.' Clearly, Comcare identified the adjustment disorder with the 'compensable PTSD and major depressive disorder.' Further, it must be taken that Comcare regarded the 2022 determination as a 'final assessment' of the degree of impairment and that in the absence of any evidence that the impairment had increased by a degree of 10 percent or more, assessed in accordance with the approved Guide, there could be no award of further lump sum compensation. Comcare relied on the provisions of section 25 of the SRC Act in coming to this decision.

(b) In matter number 2025/4711, the reviewable decision of 2 June 2025 denied the claimed entitlement because Comcare considered that that the 'social anxiety disorder' and 'generalised anxiety disorder' were not injuries separate from the injuries that were recognised as compensable.5 The dispute arose because two separate claims for impairment compensation pursuant to sections 24 and 27 of the SRC Act were made on 19 April 2024 for 'generalised anxiety disorder'6 and on 1 May 2024 in respect of 'social anxiety disorder'.7 Both claims had also attached

5 ST19, 89-92. References commencing with the letters 'ST' are references to Supplementary Tribunal documents that were lodged with the Tribunal pursuant to a Notice to the respondent pursuant to s 23 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act), requiring a decision-maker to give to the Tribunal all documents within its control relevant to the review. Like in the case of 'T-Documents', they are sequentially numbered, with subsequent page references.

responses to a 'Non-Economic Loss Questionnaire' completed by both Mr Bayer and his treating psychiatrist, Dr George Jacobs. The Comcare decision-maker concluded, '[as] I do not find you have GAD and social anxiety disorder as separate conditions, I do not have to assess whether such conditions were significantly contributed to by your employment or compensable conditions.' Accordingly, no attempt was made to assess the degree of impairment or non-economic loss resulting from such injuries.

1. Shortly prior to the hearing the respondent filed an amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 14 November 2025. In opening the case for the Respondent, Mr Kelly advised that Comcare now accepts that Mr Bayer has a further psychiatric injury identified as general anxiety disorder for which it should properly have a liability to pay compensation pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act. However, Mr Bayer still insists that there are, in addition to his PTSD, MDD and now General Anxiety Disorder (GAD), a further injury of Social Anxiety Disorder separate and distinct from the other disorders and also relevantly connected to employment. The change in position was prompted by the receipt of a supplementary report dated 5 November 2025 from Dr Suzanne Goodison, the psychiatrist who had provided the original assessment of impairment dated 6 July 2025 assessing the claim for adjustment disorder.

1. The evidence in this case shows that in addition to the neck injury sustained on 16 June 2011, there are four separate psychiatric conditions that separately merit the recognition as injuries for which there is a liability to pay compensation pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act. However, the identification of the separate psychiatric injuries must be made before drawing any conclusions about the level of impairment that results from them. Because there has been a previous assessment of the level of impairment, some further consideration must be given to whether one or more of the injuries has been the subject of a final assessment for the purposes of section 25 of the SRC Act, whether there has been an increase in the level of impairment, and whether there is any jurisdiction to review a prior final assessment made in 2022. Finally, some consideration needs to be given to the degree of impairment and non-economic loss to be assessed on any claims that are within the present Tribunal's jurisdiction.

1. This conclusion is formed on the evidence when assessed in the light of the definition of injury and the fact that multiple injuries may be occasioned by any traumatic accident and

the consequences that may follow. I shall review the history of Mr Bayer's police service and his experience of injury which provides the context for the consideration of the various developments that resulted and has led to multiple injuries.

1. It is in the nature of the legislation that each compensable injury that results in impairment must be assessed separately. In this respect, there is a difficulty in the way the earlier psychiatric impairment lump sum was determined by combining two separate psychiatric injuries for a single assessment. There is a further difficulty in relation to how the various injuries should be understood.

1. Where an employee suffers injury that results in death, incapacity for work or impairment, Comcare is liable to pay compensation pursuant to section 14(1) of the SRC Act:

(1) 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.

1. The word 'injury' is defined in section 5A(1) of the SRC Act to include injury in the primary sense as well as disease and included the aggravation of injury or disease:

(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or

(b) an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment; or

(c) an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;

but does not include 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.

1. The word 'impairment' is defined in subsection 4(1) of the SRC Act:

impairment means the loss, the loss of the use, or the damage or malfunction, of any part of the body or of any bodily system or function or part of such system or function.

1. The word 'permanent' in relation to impairment, is defined in subsection 4(1) of the SRC Act:

permanent means likely to continue indefinitely.

1. Where injury results in permanent impairment, compensation is payable pursuant to section 24 of the SRC Act.

24 Compensation for injuries resulting in permanent impairment

(1) Where an injury to an employee result in a permanent impairment, Comcare is liable to pay compensation to the employee in respect of the injury.

1. The assessment of the level of permanent impairment must be conducted in accordance with the methods identified in subsections 24(3)-(6) of the SRC Act:

(3) Subject to this section, the amount of compensation payable to the employee is such amount, as is assessed by Comcare under subsection (4), being an amount not exceeding the maximum amount at the date of the assessment.

(4) The amount assessed by Comcare shall be an amount that is the same percentage of the maximum amount as the percentage determined by Comcare under subsection (5).

(5) Comcare shall determine the degree of permanent impairment of the employee resulting from an injury under the provisions of the approved Guide.

(6) The degree of permanent impairment shall be expressed as a percentage.

1. There is a threshold for the award of compensation established by subsection 24(7) of the SRC Act. Where the degree of impairment resulting from an injury, when assessed as a percentage, is less than 10 percent, no amount of compensation is payable pursuant to section 24 or 27 of the SRC Act (save for some exceptions relating to hearing loss, the loss of, or loss of use of, a finger or a toe or impairment constituted by the loss of the sense of taste or of smell).

1. The 'approved Guide' referred to is authorised by section 28 of the SRC Act as a written document which may be varied from time to time and is a legislative instrument approved by the relevant Minister. In respect of claims received by a 'relevant authority' (such as Comcare) before 1 April 2023, the relevant guide is Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment Edition 2.1 which commenced operation with effect from 1 December 2011. This Guide is to be applied in respect of the claim for impairment compensation lodged by Mr Bayer on 7 October 2022 for chronic adjustment disorder.
2. In respect of claims for permanent impairment for 'generalised anxiety disorder' made on 19 April 2024 and for 'social anxiety disorder' made on 1 May 2024 there is a Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment Edition 3.0 which commenced operation on 1 April 2023 (approved on 7 March 2023 and registered as F2023L00203).

1. As pointed out by counsel for Comcare, insofar as it concerns the assessment of impairment from psychiatric injury, Table 5.1 of both approved Guides is essentially identical.

1. In addition to the lump sum compensation payable pursuant to section 24, there is a further entitlement to compensation pursuant to section 27 of the SRC Act in respect of 'non-economic loss'.

(1) Where an injury to an employee results in a permanent impairment and compensation is payable in respect of the injury under section 24, Comcare is liable to pay additional compensation in accordance with this section to the employee in respect of that injury for any non-economic loss suffered by the employee as a result of that injury or impairment.

(2) The amount of compensation is an amount assessed by Comcare under the formula:

A is the percentage finally determined by Comcare under section 24 to be the degree of permanent impairment of the employee; and

B is the percentage determined by Comcare under the approved Guide to be the degree of non-economic loss suffered by the employee.

1. The 'maximum amount at the date of the assessment' referred to in subsection 24(3) and set by subsection 24(9) of the SRC Act is $80,000. That amount and the amount of $15,000 for non-economic loss twice referred to in subsection 27(2) are subject to indexation in accordance with section 13 of the SRC Act.

1. Subsection 25(4) of the SRC Act deals with the case of increase in impairment following a final, as opposed to an 'interim' assessment of the level of impairment. The claimant in such a case must demonstrate an increase in the assessed level of impairment of at least 10 percent in accordance with the methods of the approved Guide:

(4) Where Comcare has made a final assessment of the degree of permanent impairment of an employee (other than a hearing loss), no further amounts of compensation shall be payable to the employee in respect of a subsequent increase in the degree of impairment, unless the increase is 10% or more.

1. The Tribunal heard evidence from the following witnesses:

(c) Mr Bayer who was primarily cross-examined in relation to his impairments and his responses to the various non-economic loss questionnaires.

(d) Dr Paul Jip, the treating general practitioner whose report of 17 April 2025 was admitted as Exhibit A1.

(e) Dr George Jacobs, the treating psychiatrist since 2013 and whose report of 28 February 2025 was admitted at Exhibit A2.

(f) Dr Suzanna Goodison, a consultant psychiatrist engaged by Comcare to report on Mr Bayer's degree of impairment and whose reports of 6 July 2025, with supplementary reports of 27 October 2025 and 5 November 2025 were admitted as Exhibits R1, R2 and R3.

1. In addition to the Tribunal Documents and Supplementary Tribunal Documents, the parties prepared a Hearing Book which included the exhibited reports but also contained extensive clinical notes summoned to the Tribunal. Neither party tendered any clinical note from the more than 1300 pages of such notes.

1. Comcare submitted that there was little in Mr Bayer's history of employment injury that was to be challenged save for certain aspects of the impairment claims and that the central issues in the dispute related to the assessment of separate injury and impairments and would prove to be largely medical questions. The two principal witnesses in that respect were Dr Jacobs and Dr Goodison.

1. Mr Bayer is currently 51 years of age. When he was 18 years old, he attempted to join the Queensland Police Service (QPS) but was rejected. Following that, he undertook studies for an associate Diploma in Justice Administration and then a bachelor's degree of Justice Studies at the Queensland University of Technology. About halfway through those studies

he reapplied for entry in the QPS and was successful. Following further study at the Queensland Police Service Academy he became a sworn officer from 4 August 1998.

1. He served for a further eight years with the QPS in uniform and plain clothes roles and in 2003 he was assigned to what he described as a 'tactical unit', the Special Emergency Response Team of the QPS.

1. He then worked as a security contractor for a period of at least three years, mainly in in Iraq but also in Afghanistan.

1. On returning to Australia, he became a sworn member of the AFP from 26 June 2010 attached to the Operational Response Group (ORG). At this time, Mr Bayer was still known by his original surname, Shinnick. He did not change his surname until 2016.8 In a letter to a medical practitioner dated 11 December 2012 in respect of a rehabilitation assessment the following employment information was given:9

Mr Shinnick is a Police Officer with the AFP Operational Response Group (ORG), which is functionally aligned with the International Deployment Group (IDG). The ORG was established in 2005 to fulfil the national and international specialist response requirements of the AFP.

In July 2012, the AFP Specialist Response Group (SRG) commenced operations through the amalgamation of the IDG ORG and ACT Policing's Specialist Response and Security Team (SRS).

Mr Shinnick is currently a member of the SRG Tactical Response (TR). The TR provides a highly disciplined specialist capability to the AFP. They respond to high risk incidents, either through planned operations or emergency responses, utilising specialist disciplines and equipment. These disciplines include, but are not limited to:

• high/medium risk warrant executions, including negotiated surrenders and forced entries
• siege management and resolution
• tactical response to active shooter threats
• high/medium risk searches, arrests and escorts
• high risk vehicle intercepts
  • less lethal force options
• counter terrorism and critical incident response to the ACT community in accordance with the National Counter Terrorism Plan

8 T18, 64 is a Change of Name Certificate dated 30 September 2016 issued by the Registrar-General of the Australian Capital Territory.

9 HB 183-185. A document marked with the prefix 'HB' is a reference to the Hearing Book prepared for the hearing which comprised documents that might be referred to evidence. The present Hearing Book in the present two review applications numbered 1197 pages.

• support to the other Australian Police Tactical Groups in the resolution of counter terrorism incidents, counter assault operations and specialist tactical taskings
• specialist support to ACTP
• insertion of specialist resources to rural/urban/remote environments via helicopter, vehicles, on foot and water
• rapid crisis response capability to AFP international operations; including incidents of civil disorder, crowd control and riot situations
• remote rural patrols
• maritime tactical operations- deployment of rigid hull inflatable boats; covert swim approaches and ship underway boarding; fast response vessel for VIP transport; and other general maritime activities
• support to public order policing
• recovery and protection of people in high risk situations
• support to the security of members deployed to AFP missions

SRG members are required to maintain a high standard of physical fitness. Members are required to participate in regular physical training sessions, including an annual Physical Competency Assessment (PCA) (See attached information regarding PCA- specialist level requirements) (Omitted).

Additional information regarding the physical requirements for SRG has been included for your consideration; ORG Medical clearance form and an AFP Internal Minute: information regarding the physical requirements of the SRG Tactical Operations and Tactical response selection phase (explains the physical assessments in more detail) (Omitted).

1. Prior to commencing with the AFP, Mr Bayer sustained injury to his neck, and he had undergone surgical fusion of the vertebrae at the C4/5 level in about 2010. Six weeks following that C4/5 fusion surgery, Mr Bayer resumed gainful employment according to a 12 June 2013 report by Dr Steven Ng, an occupational physician.10

1. Soon after commencing with the AFP, Mr Bayer was assigned to duty to quell riots at Christmas Island in March 2011. Three months later, he found himself in the Solomon Islands in another tactical operation and on 16 June 2011 he suffered another injury to his neck in a training exercise. In letter of 1 January 2014 seeking compassionate transfer, Mr Bayer described the event of his injury:11

On the 16th of June 2011, I suffered a serious workplace injury (diagnosed as a bulged disc between the Cervical 5 and Cervical 6 neck vertebrae). The injury occurred as a result of a training exercise in the Solomon Islands, whilst I was deployed as a member of the Operational Response Group (ORG). The training exercise being conducted was Helicopter Casting Dispatching. This is an extreme high risk skillset where members are inserted into the ocean via a moving helicopter. The helicopter usually travels at 20−25 knots at a distance

of 20 feet above the water. The training exercise was supposed to be conducted over water with sufficient depth for the safe entry of members.

Direct from the Water Operations manual from ORG, "Helo casting is a potentially dangerous activity that can made considerably safer if correct procedures and techniques, especially those relating to safety, are strictly observed. The two members supervising the training on the day were not even qualified to run the training and therefore the appropriate safety precautions were not carried out when my injury occurred. One being the water was not depth sounded and I actually hit the ocean floor upon entry into the water. I was rushed to Aspen Hospital and treated for my injury. The incident was reported and Comcare are currently paying for my medications, medical practitioners and for time off work when I require.

Following the injury, I managed the extreme pain with medication until August 2012, where I sort the opinion of a specialist. Neurosurgeon John SHEEHEY from St Vincent's Hospital stated that I should cease the tactical policing role in the ORG (now SRG) immediately for my future health and advised to take six months off work and all forms of physical training to see if the injury would settle down. SHEEHY also stated that my injury was inoperable due to the fact I have had a previous Cervical Spine fusion at C4 and C5 level. During my time off work, I was approved by Comcare to have a network of support specialists to try to improve my health and teach me how to manage my chronic pain. This included my general practitioner, a physiotherapist, a pain management Clinic, a psychologist and recently a psychiatrist. I suffer daily from chronic pain due to my neck injury. The pain starts in the neck region and radiates through my nerve down to my left arm. I manage my daily pain with prescribed Analgesics. My Psychologist and Psychiatrist have diagnosed me with Adjustment Disorder.

In March 2013, I was transferred to Sydney Aviation on the advice of an independent practitioner (Occupational Therapist). I was placed on a temporary transfer to AUOP. My goal was to gain entry into the Airport Security Officers Program. In June I was advised that I was successful in obtaining a position on the ASO course. This entailed an 8-week intensive course in Canberra that involved a large amount of physical training including grappling and boxing. Due to my chronic pain, rigorous training needed for this program and for my future health, in consultation with my support specialists, I was advised to decline the position offered. Just recently, positions in Brisbane have been advertised in the ASO Program. As I have already completed the assessment gateways and interview for the program this would be ideal for me to return home to Brisbane, however due to my injury, l am still unable to complete the ASO course. This is extremely upsetting for myself.

1. In his initial Comcare claim for compensation dated 4 August 2011, he sought compensation for a 'neck injury - C5-C6' that occurred on 16 June 2011 in the Solomon Islands.12 The brief details in the claim form noted the injury occurred 'during a ORG - Training exercise jumping from a helicopter from a height of approx. 10m at a speed of 20 knots, struck ocean floor.' The description apparently matches one of the 'disciplines' noted above - 'insertion of specialist resources to rural/urban/remote environments via helicopter, vehicles, on foot and water'. It seems that the exercise was performed over water but that there was a sand bar just below the surface so that this landing at speed came to an end against an unyielding object rather than deep water.

1. Comcare accepted liability for the claim made on 24 August 2011, describing the injury as a 'neck sprain'.13

1. The injury was originally treated at the army hospital in the Solomon Islands and a CT scan taken showed a bulge in the C5/6 disc. He initially returned to work, but his neck pain and left arm weakness grew worse, and he was advised to take time from work from August 2012 to February 2013. A pain specialist, Dr Jordan Wood, noted in a report of 20 May 2013 that his pain was being managed by opioid analgesics and he was taking amitriptyline to assist with sleep a desvenlafaxine for depression. He was also noted to have been drinking heavily in 2011.14

1. Mr Bayer was referred to Dr George Jacobs, his long-standing treating psychiatrist who first saw him on 8 August 2013. Dr Jacobs wrote the first of many reports to both Comcare and the Department of Veterans' Affairs on 22 September 2013.15

1. On 27 February 2014, Comcare accepted liability to pay compensation in respect of 'Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent Episode' pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act, in addition to the existing liability for the 'neck sprain' of 16 June 2011.16 That injury was deemed to have been sustained on 8 August 2013, being the first identifiable date of medical treatment. It might be worth noting that the injury descriptor was taken from the International Classification of Diseases and Injuries (ICD-9-CM 2nd Edition). This is a form of classification of disorders on a wide spectrum. In psychiatry, there is also the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders issued by the American Psychiatry Association (DSM), in various editions.

1. Following the initial period of incapacity for work, Mr Bayer was transferred to duty at Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport because his physical disabilities prevented him from engaging in the sort of duties required for the ORG tactical operations. In a report of 10 January 2020,

Emmaline Golding, his psychologist at that time, who was also described in a report as an alcohol counsellor,17 wrote of the period 2014-2015:18

Mr Shinnick sustained a permanent spinal injury from an accident occurring while at work with the AFP in June 2011. This injury and the resulting chronic pain led to the loss of his police tactical career.

1. Mr Shinnick was redeployed to undertake regular policing duties at Sydney Airport, however the nature of these duties was vastly different from the SWAT career for which he had trained and dedicated himself to.
2. As a result of the chronic pain resulting from his injury, and the subsequent loss of his active tactical duties, Mr Shinnick then developed major depressive disorder. As is common with people experiencing major depression, Mr Shinnick sought relief in the form of binge drinking.
3. My professional observations and assessment of Mr Shinnick during the period from November 2014 - April 2015, is that Mr Shinnick was still experiencing depression, with elements of PTSD, resulting from grief over the loss of his police tactical career. Mr Shinnick spoke at length about his passion for that type of work, his despair at not being able to do the type of work which he loves and has trained extensively for, and the impact that his injury has had on his career, being a significant part of his life. The majority of our sessions focussed on coping with grief and loss, and an endeavour to find new meaning, purpose and identity beyond the SWAT role. We also discussed at length the need to move past his resentment of the AFP and the particular people training on the day of the accident.
4. Mr Shinnick made good progress in regards to managing his alcohol consumption, and moved to Canberra for a fresh start.
5. Mr Shinnick later lost his employment with the AFP due to misconduct. This occurred in October 2015, well after Mr Shinnick had already been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and was already receiving treatment for that depression. The timeline of events, in combination with the nature of our sessions between November 2014 and October 2015, make it clear to me that Mr Shinnick's mental health concerns are due to the loss of his police tactical role, not the loss of his employment with the AFP in general. In fact, Brendan ceased sessions with me for 10 months after he finished employment with the AFP, as he was feeling better and did not consider them necessary.
6. Mr Shinnick began working in Papua New Guinea in January 2016, in a security role, demonstrating his willingness to work, and preference for a physically active working environment, even while still experiencing some physical pain and some depression.

1. A rehabilitation assessment was made in 2014 also confirmed the need for hospitalisation for some of his symptoms: 'Mr Shinnick reports having self admitted himself to the local police station on three separate occasions which have required hospital admission due to levels of anger aggression and thoughts of violence. Each incident involved alcohol and reported intoxication.'19

17 T19, 65. Report of Dr Andrew Moore, treating general practitioner to Comcare, dated 11 April 2017.

1. On 14 October 2015, Mr Bayer's service with the AFP came to an end. He had been suspended without pay from 21 January 2015.20

1. On 24 August 2017, Mr Bayer made a claim for compensation for 'severe PTSD' stating 'I experienced a life threatening event before the onset of my PTSD. I am also reminded of the incident every day due to my chronic neck pain.'21 He noted in a covering email of 22 September 2017: 'The Veteran Affairs Review Board that made the final decision on approving my PTSD. I don't know the process for the investigation from Comcare but Veteran Affairs investigated it for a while through reports from my treating G.P Andrew Moore and my psychiatrist George Jacobs and this was their final summation on their evidence provided and the final report on approving my PTSD.'22 By written determination dated 7 June 2018, Comcare accepted liability for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).23 That determination accepted the opinion from Dr Macleod in a report dated 29 November 2017 which it commissioned. Dr Macleod recorded on mental state examination:24

He described himself as psychologically crippled. He clearly indicated his embitterment towards the supervisors involved in the accident (whom he said subsequently were promoted), and the Federal Police. He stated that in that job he was "living his dream" and now he struggles to fulfil more menial jobs such as security work, stating that the heavy clothes required in such employment aggravates his neck pain. His mood appeared to be sad, irritable, but reactive and he did not present as being currently manifestly miserable. The predominant affect was that of anger and bitterness.

1. Dr Macleod's report considered an alternative diagnosis of 'adjustment disorder with depressed affect':

His predominant symptoms present are those of unresolved grief and difficulties adjusting to life after Federal Police Service. The differential diagnosis is that of a posttraumatic stress disorder in partial remission or an adjustment disorder with depressed affect. DSM 5 acknowledges adjustment disorders as trauma-related. Using DSM-IV, when Mr Bayer's condition was initially diagnosed would encourage a PTSD-like syndrome. As mentioned trauma-related symptoms do evolve over time, thus one can't dismiss this diagnosis however using DSM-5 as he currently presents I would be inclined to an adjustment disorder diagnosis. He does not currently present as being manifestly chronically depressed and his alcohol use is presently controlled.

1. Ultimately, Dr Macleod concluded Mr Bayer 'has posttraumatic stress disorder in partial remission, major depression currently in reasonable remission, and a chronic pain syndrome consequent upon the "the neck strain".'25

1. As to the separate identification of PTSD and MDD, Mr Bayer stated in an email to Comcare dated 12 November 2018:26

In point 20 of Provins report, it states Dr MACLOED states the major trigger to my PTSD is from my ongoing cervical pain syndrome IS TOTALLY WRONG. Any health care professional would state PTSD is not triggered by chronic pain, it's from a life threatening event of incident. I suffer from severe PTSD from the incident that almost left me a quadriplegic. The incident left me with my conditions Comcare has been supporting me for almost 7 years now. I suffer PTSD from the incident and my depression is caused by the chronic pain and the loss of my tactical police career.

In point 4 of Provins, she discusses my termination details. Why she does this i do not know. I see it nothing more than to discredit my character. She probably has heard me complain about losing my police career because of the incident and I presume she brings up this point to state it was my own fault I was terminated. I have stated numerous times that Neurosurgeon John SHEEHY ended my tactical career on September 15, 2012 due to the bulged Disc I sustained from the incident. Tactical policing was my life and to lose it from such a negligent way still haunts me daily.

1. Mr Bayer was, by 2018, living in Brisbane and his then treating general practitioner, Dr Garry Buchan-Hepburn, reported on 17 May 2018 that his patient was suffering from deteriorating pain from the neck injury and had been referred to Dr David Walker for a two-level discectomy.27

1. Mr Bayer's entitlement to continuing weekly payments of compensation for incapacity were ceased by Comcare by a decision dated 12 July 2018.28 Following a reconsideration of that decision requested by Mr Bayer, Comcare affirmed the decision on 30 August 2018.29 The matter then proceeded to review by the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

1. By 2019, Mr Bayer's marriage was failing. His treating general practitioner noted on 23 May 2019:30

Under the threat of marriage failure he went 'cold turkey' on all his medications and somehow coped with the withdrawal symptoms from his high narcotic dose.

When last seen he was still having flash backs from his helicopter accident and still had arm pain, but was coping with regular counselling.

1. On 17 July 2019 Mr Bayer was admitted to the Pine Rivers Private Hospital. The discharge summary noted:31

... He is a 45 yrs old, ex police officer living with his wife and two sons aged 5 and 2 yrs. He suffered spinal injury in 2011 during a training in Solomon Islands as part of AFP. He continued working but was told that he was unfit for tactical duties. He was posted in airport duties, following which he left the force in 2016. He has not been able to get over the grief of leaving the police force.

He has been under care of Dr Jacobs, Psychiatrist, in Sydney since 2013. He said he has been on various medications like Fluoxetine, Pristiq, Olanzapine, Endep, Sertraline, Quetiapine and Diazepam in the past. He stopped his medications, due to sedation. He stopped all his medications in December 2018. He has not had any admissions previously.

He was Involved in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan as private security. He did not report any PTSD symptoms from that job. He reported PTSD from the neck injury, when he jumped off a helicopter as part of training.

He reported that his depression has been gradually worsening, with suicidal thoughts in last 2 months. He feared that he would lose his family. He reported a constant state of anxiety and guilt for the way he treated his family. He denied any aggression or violence. He stopped working out in gym, 3 months ago. His sleep was reduced, with 2-4 hrs sleep and frequent nightmares.

He has h/o binge drinking, but no alcohol for 4 yrs. One month before admission, he had 4 std drinks with a friend, and was changed with DUI. Six months ago, he was charged with DUI of prescription medications. He denied any recreational drug use.

After admission, he was prescribed Mirtazapine, which he tolerated well, He was also prescribed Diazepam, as PRN. He attended the group therapy, which he found helpful. He was also prescribed Olanzapine, with good effect. With the medications, his sleep improved, nightmare reduced, anxiety improved anti depressive symptoms reduced. He was unable to tolerate Neulactil, due to muscle pain.

He was discharged on 01/08/19. He was not keen on day program. He wanted to focus on his fitness. He will attend OP follow up. He will benefit from psychological therapy.

1. Dr Sandy Macleod provided a supplementary report to Comcare's legal advisers dated 10 February 2020 after being provided with the further medical reports, including the Pine Rivers Private Hospital discharge summary and commented:32

Mr Bayer suffers a complex constellation of psychiatric symptoms, these compounded and aggravated by musculoskeletal chronic pains, ongoing situational difficulties and his struggles to adjust to the loss of his policing career and wellness. Adjustment issues, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depression, chronic pain and the stressors of

the ongoing litigation process all interact with each other, creating what is essentially a malignant mental health condition.

Depressive disorders and posttraumatic symptoms tend to fluctuate, sometimes reactively and sometimes spontaneously, and so it is not surprising to me that the severity of these symptoms do vary for Mr Bayer and this is reflected in the varying psychiatric reports compiled over Mr Bayer's illness.

There is compelling medical evidence that Mr Bayer suffers chronic PTSD. Dr George Jacobs, Dr Valappil (Pines Rivers Private Hospital) and myself have documented this diagnosis (though in my original report, I considered it to be then subclinical). The initiator of

this condition was the accident in the Solomon Islands in 2011 and he continues to experience reminders (e.g. helicopter noise) and intrusive memories about the actual accident and also the circumstances around the accident.

To my knowledge, the circumstances of his reported dismissal are uncertain, but this occurred later after 'failed' rehabilitation.

There are adequate reports to affirm a fluctuating, and severe, complicating Major Depressive Disorder, a common associate of PTSD.

1. In a separate report to Comcare dated 10 February 2020, Dr Ashwani Garg, another consultant psychiatrist, took down the following self-report of Mr Bayer:33

He reported the following: 'I want to commit suicide. My wife kicked me out of the home; she had enough of my mental health. She is sick of me sleeping too much, being irritable, and not being able to find a job. I am a male and should be looking after my family; however, I have become like a housewife. I don't have any drive. I get intrusive memories in which I want to torture people who have ruined my career. I was doing really well as a Tactical SWAT Team police officer until I injured my neck on 16 June 2011. I have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which gets triggered by police sirens, sounds of ambulance, fireman, army personnel, and uniforms [like that] of my wife. My wife works for the Australian Federal Police (AFP). I have constant thoughts of the incident in which I injured my neck in 2011. I have constant thoughts of hurting the AFP. I am constantly moody and jumpy. I often have resentment and hatred towards the AFP. I have "rational" grief for losing my tactical career. My depression is so bad that I sleep for six days after taking sleeping pills. I wake up and take sleeping pills again and go back to sleep. I want to get a Glock (gun) and shoot myself. I do not know what the purpose of this life is. I am always anxious and when anxious, I feel like having diarrhoea, shortness of breath, dizziness, and feeling as if I am going to faint. I take a bottle of Alprozalam with me all the time.'

Mr Bayer reported having nightmares in which he sees a boat and his head being chopped off. He also sees his children dying sometimes. 'I see my children dying in an accident in my dreams. I have these dreams every day.'

1. On 5 March 2020, an order was made by the AAT in matter number 2018/6222 pursuant to section 42C of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act) setting aside the reviewable decision made on 30 August 2018 and in substitution for the decision set aside, found that Mr Bayer was entitled to compensation for incapacity payments from 31

May 2018 onwards in respect of injuries described as 'neck sprain, major depressive disorder - recurrent and post-traumatic stress disorder'.34

1. Mr Bayer has previously made two claims for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss for the then accepted psychological injury claims by completing a claim form in respect of 'Major Depression - with recurrent episode' on 4 March 202035 and a separate claim form for 'Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the same date, 4 March 2020.36

1. The impairment claims were assessed and determined with a single award of lump sum compensation pursuant to sections 24 and 27 of the SRC Act. The 1 April 2022 determination made by Comcare made reference to opinions received from Dr Jacobs, the treating psychiatrist and Dr Sam Calvin, a psychiatrist engaged by Comcare for the purpose of making another assessment. Both doctors agreed that Mr Bayer was suffering from both PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and that the conditions were likely to continue indefinitely.

1. Dr Calvin's report noted Mr Bayer's self-report that in addition to the major depression and PTSD 'he also had an Anxiety Disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder and previously dependence on opioid prescription medication. He added that he has a binge eating disorder and chronic pain.'37

1. Dr Jacobs disagreed with the assessment of impairment made by Dr Calvin in a report of 22 November 2020:38

I have read both of Dr Calvin's reports. I believe the two reports present Mr Bayer's history and background very well. He concurs that Mr Bayer has diagnoses of Major Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. These conditions have been treated with a variety of treatments including: medications of various types: psychotherapy in a variety of forms: hospitalisations and TMS. His prognoses for both of the conditions are guarded. He believes

that it is not possible for Mr Bayer to return to any work related to tactical policing and possibly to any type of work.

I have consultations with Mr Bayer one to two times a week. He ventilates regularly about his losses and his incredible anger, which is difficult to contain. He talks in very destructive language, which was not expressed in the interviews with Dr Calvin.

As a result of the many hours I have spent with Mr Bayer I do not agree with Dr Calvin's assessment of the degree of whole person permanent impairment for the reason expressed in the previous paragraph.

2 Referring to Table 5.1 of the Guide, in my opinion Mr Bayer has 50% whole person impairment for each of the conditions - Major Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

My reason for scoring 50% for both conditions is that Mr Bayer constantly has 'One of the following: severe disturbances of thinking and/or behaviour entailing potential or actual harm to self and/or others'. He doesn't need supervision and direction in a confined environment.

However, he has been hospitalised at least four times since September 2019. They have usually been for very strong thoughts of self-harm. Mr Bayer has expressed a desire for revenge against those responsible for his injury. He is highly unlikely to act on his very strong thoughts, His sleep and behaviours are often disturbed by these thoughts. He has often turned to drugs and alcohol to try and self-medicate these severe disturbances of thought.

As Dr Calvin found both conditions are permanent, His prognoses were guarded. I agree that both conditions are permanent.

1. In respect of the hospitalisations referred to in the report, Dr Jacobs stated:

My records show psychiatric hospitalisations as follows. I suspect there have been more: September 2019 Pine Rivers

One of the admissions was for TMS.39 The treatment continued as an outpatient.

Admissions were otherwise for powerful suicidal thoughts, self-harm behaviours or significant concerns on behalf of his wife for his mental state and his safety.

1. In determining the degree of impairment, the decision maker stated that Comcare 'has preferred the opinion of Dr Jacobs, noting that he has been your treating psychiatrist since 2013.' The decision had earlier summarised Dr Jacobs' opinion thus:40

Dr Jacobs has provided a separate assessment for your claimed PTSD and MDD. Dr Jacobs has provided a WPI score of 50% relating to your MDD. Dr Jacobs reported that this was based on the fact that you have had multiple admissions to hospital over the two years. Dr Jacobs reported that you had constant rumination regarding the events that lead to your injury, along with ongoing disturbances and thoughts of harming the trainer of the helocasting. Dr Jacobs has reported that you experienced thoughts of self-harm almost daily.

39 A reference to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation used for treatment resistant psychiatric disorders.

Dr Jacobs provided a WPI score of 60% relating to your PTSD. Dr Jacobs reported that this was on the basis that you were constantly hypervigilant and suffering ongoing and repeated hospitalisations. Dr Jacobs reported that you were constantly triggered by any contact with police and police sirens. Dr Jacobs reported that you required supervision to undertake self-care, with the need for regular and ongoing hospitalisations, and in the absence of this, your self-care and mental health deteriorated.

1. On 6 August 2021, Dr Jacobs gave further justification for his scores of 50 percent in respect of the of Major Depressive Disorder and PTSD:41
   1. MDD Permanent Impairment rating.

Mr Bayer scores at least 50 on the permanent impairment scale and possibly 60 at times when he loses control of his emotions. Mr Bayer has had multiple admissions to hospital over the last two years (at least 5) due to his high levels of severe disturbances of thinking and behaviour which entails potential harm to others, e.g. he ruminates constantly about the person who flew the helicopter during the operation in which he was injured wanting to harm that person. His rumination have prevented him sleeping, working in any jobs in a satisfactory manner and being available as a partner to his wife. In addition he has had strong thoughts of self-harm to the point of needing asylum in a contained environment of a psychiatric hospital.

He has as described above needed supervision and direction in a confined environment when his emotions are out of control.

In addition when he works in the very simple administrative role two short days in a week he needs to be supervised. There are many days when his personal care is poor. He needs to be encouraged to wash, brush his teeth and be reasonably respectful for his two sons and his work. He may go four or five days without any self-care. He has recently had to see a dentist for multiple treatments to his mouth because of extremely poor dental hygiene.

1. My adjustments to the previous ratings are to the severity of his depression. Mr Bayer is chronically depressed. He has lost interest in most activities in his life. He may overuse medication to enable him to "escape life". He may drink too much alcohol. He has very poor concentration. He is often fatigued. He is always negative about his future life.

He comfort eats sweets and his weight fluctuates significantly. He has lost most of his friends. He has social withdrawal.

1. Mr Bayer's symptoms are very severe, in the highest category. Mr Bayer's withdrawal his can lead to being asleep for two or three days on end. He may only get up to toilet and drink fluids and barely eat. His self-care is often poor. He has been incontinent due to his withdrawal.
2. 5, 6 often there is no-one supervising, even though he has needed supervision. As a result his condition deteriorates. His admissions to hospital enable some recovery due to proper continuous supervision' He needs supervision for his self-care. He needs supervision to carry out the simple job he does for a few hours a week. He has an employer who has to give direction all the time.

A significant amount of his supervision is provided by me. As I described above there are weeks when I may speak to Mr Bayer daily mostly on his initiative. He needs regular contact with his wife even though they have separated. She provides direction especially in regards to their children.

Mr Bayer probably scores 60 on the permanent impairment scale. He has times when his nightmares frighten him, prevent him sleeping properly. He has social withdrawal due to his anxiety. He is overaroused constantly. He self-medicates to soothe himself with prescribed medications and substances' He is frequently triggered by seeing police, police vehicles and others. He then retreats to his home' When he is very overaroused he becomes hypervigilant and fears others may harm him or he may harm others. He has to be hospitalised in such circumstances to be supervised in all aspects of his life.

1. Again the severity of his condition for the PTSD is worse. He has all the symptoms one would for in PTSD' He has had many psychological symptoms of PTSD e.g. intrusive distressing memories, recurrent distressing dreams; prolonged psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that resemble aspects of the trauma; avoidance of external reminders of people, activities, situations and objects that arouse distressing memories; negative alterations in cognitions and mood demonstrated by fear, anger, persistent inability to experience positive emotions; and marked alterations in arousal and reactivity demonstrated by hypervigilance, reckless or self-destructive behaviour, an exaggerated startle response, sleep disturbance and poor concentration.

The fact that he has many more of the symptoms one needs to diagnose PTSD demonstrates the severity of his condition, i.e. it has deteriorated since I wrote my rating-s in April 2020.

1. As mentioned above his symptoms are very severe. His avoidance is a major factor that has led to his poor self-care. If he sees people he recognises he retreats, runs away or becomes fearful. He may then not be able to complete his normal activities which damages his self image and his relationships. He may not do grocery shopping and other basic activities such as cooking.

d, e, f. Mr Bayer's supervision is piecemeal. Due to his avoidance his self-care deteriorates and he then has needed supervision. His hospital admissions of which there have been at least five in the last two years are the best supervision as they last for a period of days to weeks. He requires that type of supervision. He needs supervision for the simple job he does for a few hours each week.

The employer has to give him direction all the time.

A significant amount of supervision is provided by me with our very regular consultations sometimes on a daily basis including weekends. He needs regular contact with his wife to enable him to be able to be directed in his interactions with his two sons.

1. However, the entitlement was determined to be based on a single assessment of the degree of impairment of 50 percent based on the differing opinion of Dr Calvin:

Comcare has concluded upon review of the submissions that that your PTSD and MDD, whilst diagnostically separate accepted conditions, are indistinguishable from one another for the purposes of assessing your WPI. Therefore, accepting Dr Calvin's view, they have been determined as one condition.

1. No challenge was raised to this approach by Mr Bayer. In his evidence to the Tribunal Mr Bayer said that he was too sick at that time to challenge the decision to award impairment as a single payment rather than the entitlement to both injuries. I will return to this issue later because it impacts on the decision in the present review.

1. Mr Bayer made a claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss in relation to his neck injury. On 27 March 2023 Comcare determined that

this claim was accepted, that the level of impairment assessed in accordance with Table

9.15 of the approved Guide was 28 percent, having undergone C5/6 and C6/7 anterior disc replacement surgery in May 2018, and that the total amount payable pursuant to section 24 and 27 of the SRC Act was $80,671.79.42 I note that the letter advising Mr Bayer of the determination was directed to Dr Jacobs in Sydney.

1. Further claims for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment were made. On 7 October 2022 Mr Bayer claimed compensation in respect of 'Chronic Adjustment Disorder'.43

1. Mr Bayer provided a long, rambling and angry submission to Comcare as to why his claim for chronic adjustment disorder ought to be accepted and that the level of impairment should be assessed at 50 percent. The submission is not dated but the type face varies from 12 point to 36 point to emphasise certain statements made.44 He appended various prior reports diagnosing Adjustment Disorder, including that of Dr Bruce Westmore, psychiatrist, dated 13 September 2013,45 Martin O'Grady, consultant psychologist, dated 29 March

2014,46 and Dr George Jacobs, his treating psychiatrist, dated 11 November 2013,47

1. Further appended evidence included the threats of violence broadly directed to those who he felt had wronged him. In a social media text to Dr Jacobs dated 22 May 2022 picturing a knife and stating: 'U know what's sick? Me writing a 10 page war and peace about my conditions at the moment. Didn't send it. I go to bed at 4.09am, whilst sharpening my new Rambo Last Blood knife. Watch the movie. It's what I dream and fantasise about doing to the people who have wronged me in the last 10 years. All I want is peace and Comcare recently haven't provided that to me by a disgraceful determination on May 5. What a joke.

What a joke!!! I am not laughing however. Vicarious PTSD is real!!!'48 His long undated statement referred to above made several references to 'Rambo 5'.

1. Comcare determined on 29 April 2024 to deny liability to pay lump sum compensation for permanent impairment for the adjustment disorder, referring to the equating of the level of impairment with that determined for PTSD in 2022.49

Based on medical evidence provided by Dr Jacobs in 2021, you met the criteria for 'severe disturbances of thinking and/or behaviour entailing potential or actual harm to self and/or others' as per the permanent impairment guide. As such, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was determined at 50% WPI as outlined in the letter dated 1 April 2022.

In the report dated 31 March 2024, Dr Jacobs notes symptoms which are identical to those noted in 2021 to determine PTSD. The pervasive nature of these symptoms has already been determined as a part of your permanent impairment claim for PTSD.

To meet the criteria for 'severe disturbances' in line with The Guide, psychotic thinking or delusional thinking must be present. When considering The Guide to assess the 50% WPI for an adjustment disorder, according to Dr Jacobs report and existing case law, you have been severely impaired twice by an adjustment disorder considering the impact of what has already been determined for your permanent impairment claim for PTSD.

1. The determination further concluded: 'Whilst I acknowledge that you suffer from an adjustment reaction, I am not satisfied that there has been any further loss to that of your already accepted permanent impairment claim for PTSD. Therefore, I consider that your WPI for adjustment reaction is 0%.' The reviewable decision dated 26 June 2024 continued to maintain that approach, stating:50

While I have considered your adjustment disorder brief and the evidence from Dr Jacobs, I find the impairments detailed are the same as those that were previously considered and compensated for your compensable PTSD and major depressive disorder. As there is no impairment that has not been previously compensated, it follows that you have not sustained an impairment that is at least 10% WPI as a result of an adjustment disorder.

1. On 19 April 2023 a claim was made for compensation in respect of 'Substance Use Disorder - Alcohol'.51 As far as I can tell, there has not been a decision made in respect of this claim.

Generalised anxiety disorder and social anxiety disorder

1. On 6 December 2023 the claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss was made in respect of the injury identified as 'Anxiety Disorder [Generalised Anxiety Disorder]'.52 Dr Jacobs, in completing the assessment, stated that the percentage level of impairment of the affected 'body part, function or system' was 100 percent. In cross-examination, he accepted that there was no possible assessment of Table

5.1 of the approved Guide at the 100 percent level.

1. A further claim for lump sum compensation was made in respect of 'Social Anxiety Disorder' on or about 1 May 2024, Dr George Jacobs stating in the treating practitioner's comments: 'Significant impairment; percentage not quantifiable.'53 Mr Bayer appended further documentary evidence in support of the claim stating, 'Wherever I am, I fear SCRUTINY from anyone, anywhere. I find it near impossible to be in crowded situations. I can't do my shopping, but my 10-year-old son does it with me to get it done quickly, so I can get home. I find it 99% impossible to do group Jujitsu lessons.'54 He appended a picture of pants soiled due to extreme anxiety, said to be taken at a Jujitsu lesson.

1. On 28 April 2025, Comcare denied the claims made for lump sum compensation for social anxiety disorder and generalised anxiety disorder on the ground that Mr Bayer did not suffer from such disorders.55 In doing so, the decision maker made reference to the recent report by Comcare from Dr Christopher Slack, psychiatrist, dated 28 May 2024 for the purpose of determining whether these jiujitsu lessons would be helpful for Mr Bayer's mental health but which, in making this assessment, identified three separate psychological conditions: 'I have made diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood as well as PTSD and MDD which seem to be largely in remission.'56

1. The reviewable decision dated 2 June 2025 affirmed the determination of 28 April 2025 and for the same reasons. To clarify the effect of these decision in relation to the specific claims for permanent impairment, Comcare wrote to Mr Bayer on 3 July 2025 stating that the

'previous decline means Comcare is not liable for paying compensation for permanent impairment under section 24 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act). Comcare is also not liable to pay him compensation for non-economic loss under section 27 of the SRC Act.'57

1. Dr Paul Jip has been a treating general practitioner of Mr Bayer since about 2017. His report of 17 April 2025 is limited to the question of adjustment disorder which he assessed for impairment at the level of 50 percent in accordance with Table 5.1 of the approved Guide due to 'severe disturbances of thoughts, self harm and harm to others'. His report, taken in as Exhibit A1, accepted the diagnosis already given by Dr Christopher Slack on 20 May 2024.

1. He accepted in cross-examination that he had made no other assessments of impairments. I have found the evidence of the two psychiatrists to be of greater assistance in the matters I have to decide.

1. Dr George Jacobs is a consultant psychiatrist with a special interest in chronic pain who has been the principal treater for Mr Bayer since 8 August 2013. He has provided Comcare with multiple reports over the years since then. In his first report of 22 September 2013 Dr Jacobs diagnosed his patient with major depression and this diagnosis was made based upon the mood effects following his 2011 injury in the Solomons and the subsequent chronic pain, poor sleep and 'poor acceptance of what has happened.'58 He initially thought the major depression was well treated, but on the second consultation following the birth of Mr Bayer's son, his patient reported feeling inadequate and unable to fully participate in raising his son. Dr Jacobs commented 'He had lost his physical prowess. He had put on weight. His self-esteem had been damaged. He was depressed and tearful. He had lost his identity. He was very frustrated by his situation.'

1. Dr Jacobs told the Tribunal that over the years he had consulted with Mr Bayer every two to three weeks and at certain times more than once a week. Reviewing many of the reports provided in the Tribunal documents, it is apparent that Dr Jacobs formulated his diagnoses over a long period of time. In evidence, Dr Jacobs was presented with various opinions of other psychiatric examiners, some of whom he agreed with, but he pointed to the problems of cross-sectional analyses as opposed to a longitudinal analysis. He said that in a case of seeking a second opinion, among some of his colleagues, such could only be provided after three separate examinations. He emphasised that patient presentations change over time and that only taking account of all the presentations over a longer period could mean a more accurate assessment of a patient be given. He agreed in cross-examination that symptoms of various different psychiatric conditions may overlap but he also stated there are differences in distinct conditions that appear over time.

1. In his report to Comcare of 16 February 2011 he confirmed the diagnosis of Major Depression, a diagnosis in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders (DSM) and stated that it was related to the 16 June 2011 accident which caused severe pain leading to chronic pain and the depression. His patient suffered 'many losses as a result of his injury including: his physical prowess; his usual job; his identity and his earning capacity.'59 The perpetuation of the condition was the difficulty in coming to terms with the injury and its chronic pain. Comcare accepted liability for 'Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent Episode' (the descriptor coming from the International Classification of Diseases and Injuries (ICD-9-CM 2nd Edition) in its determination of 27 February 2014.60

1. In a further report dated 12 September 2014, Dr Jacobs diagnosed a 'reasonably well treated Major Depression and needed to stay on the antidepressant medication. He had chronic pain. He also had a chronic Adjustment Disorder due to his poor acceptance of what had happened.'61 In cross-examination, Dr Jacobs stated the anger and thoughts of violence to others were part of this newly diagnosed disorder. He agreed that the descriptor chronic indicated it lasted beyond the expected six-month duration. He agreed that it would be accord with the existence of that disorder from early 2014.

1. Dr Jacobs was asked in cross-examination about his comment to the questionnaire he completed for the Department of Veterans' Affairs on 12 October 2014 where he was asked to assess an impairment rating in an 'Emotional and Behavioural Worksheet' for both major depression and chronic adjustment disorder. The combined score was 29 percent. In answer to the question on the form 'If you diagnose more than one psychiatric condition, please advise the contribution (for, example, nil, 25%, 50%, 75%, all) to the above final rating made by each diagnosed condition,' to which he answered, 'each approximately equal'. It was suggested to Dr Jacobs in cross-examination that another way to put that answer was to say that half of the assessment was due to the depression and half to the chronic adjustment disorder. Dr Jacobs answered that this was correct but that it did not mean that either was insignificant. I do not consider that the answers merely translate to a conclusion that any overall assessment of impairment should be attributed 14.5 percent to depression and 14.5 percent to the adjustment disorder. The questions relate to a different method of assessing disability and are ambiguous. The answer could well be taken to mean 29 percent for each condition. Dr Jacobs stated in clarification that both conditions were very significant.

1. Dr Jacobs reported to Comcare on 6 April 2015 that his patient abused alcohol but that this abuse was not constant and fluctuated and 'appears to be the result of frustration with his pain which also fluctuates.'62

1. In a report to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) dated 14 February 201663 Dr Jacobs diagnosed PTSD related to the trauma of 16 June 2011 and noted that he had also previously diagnosed disorders of 'Major Depression, Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder'. In respect of those diagnoses, he provided further detail in his report:

• 4.1 The diagnoses were: Major Depression (DSM-IV) and Adjustment Disorder (DSM-JV). As time has gone on Mr Shinnick's anger had become more prominent with easy retriggering. An additional diagnosis of PTSD (DSM-IV) was probable.

4.2 and 4.3 When I saw Mr Shinnick he had many symptoms. He clearly had symptoms of depression with sleep disturbance, pessimism, loss of interest, loss of energy. He also had a traumatic event. He became overaroused with hypervigilance as a major symptom. He developed recurrent thoughts about the incident which he was unable to stop from disturbing his life. He increased his alcohol intake to help him to try and reduce the recurrent thoughts about the incident and how close he was to dying. His chronic pain is a daily reminder of his

losses. This makes him very angry. He had wanted to be a policeman from a young age and that had now been taken from him. He has felt a need to talk about what happened. When he does so he can again be very angry.

• 4.4 My original diagnoses did not include Substance Abuse (DSM-IV) but that became an additional diagnosis after I saw Mr Shinnick for a while. His drink of choice was beer.
• 4.5 The amount he may consume can vary significantly up to 15 schooners. In recent times his consumption has dropped due to greater awareness. He may drink more if he doesn't feel heard or he is kept in the dark about his future. He may binge if his pain worsens on any given day.
• 4.6 I am unable to give a date of onset. However, his injury and its subsequent pain led to all the psychiatric conditions that have been described over time. PTSD takes time to evolve.
• 4.7 In my opinion the injury in the Solomon Islands led to the psychiatric conditions which I have described above.

1. In a subsequent report to DVA dated 2 December 2016 he stated that the PTSD had probably been present soon after the injury in 2011.64 In his answers to the Tribunal he affirmed this opinion and qualified it by saying that in respect of the symptoms of presentation the 'emphasis changed over time'.

1. In a report of 29 July 2018, Dr Jacobs stated that in addition to the major depression, his patient had 'developed an unrelenting Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with chronic nightmares, intrusive images, avoidance, poor motivation, anger, overarousal requiring major tranquilisers to settle and sleep. There have been times when he has drunk excessively. That has not been a big issue in recent times but could easily recur with traumatic re-experiencing.'65

1. On 30 September 2019 Dr Jacobs completed a DVA impairment assessment form stating that his patient suffered at least four psychiatric conditions, all permanent: adjustment disorder, alcohol use disorder, depressive disorder and post traumatic adjustment disorder.66 Shortly prior to that report for DVA, Dr Jacobs advised Comcare on 10 August 2019 in relation to his patient's major depression and PTSD, that his patient lacked any capacity for work and needed ongoing treatment. He reported Mr Bayer 'has struggled to come to terms with his PTSD symptoms e.g. nightmares, anger, losses, etc.'67

1. Dr Jacobs, in a report of 9 October 2019, set out for Comcare the detailed criteria he applied to the diagnosis of PTSD:68

A: Directly experiencing the traumatic event - the helicopter accident.

B: Intrusion symptoms - recurrent distressing dreams related to the traumatic event: recurrent, involuntary and distressing memories of the traumatic event e.g., intense or prolonged psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event e.g. seeing or hearing a helicopter.

C: Avoidance - social withdrawal does not socialise with people associated with policing and defence personnel due to being external reminders, hates conversations about their occupation and so avoids the situations. -

D: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood associated with the traumatic event - persistent and exaggerated negative beliefs or expectations about oneself expressed as poor self-esteem persistent negative emotional state e.g. anger, fear and shame about his lost role.

E: Marked alterations in arousal and reactivity - he has significant irritability and angry outbursts; exaggerated startle response to police sirens and other loud noises; and sleep disturbance, waking often.

F: Duration of the disturbance is more than one month - it is years.

G: The disturbance has caused clinically significant distress and impairment in social occupational and personal areas of functioning.

H: The disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance.

1. In that same report Dr Jacobs gave his opinion as to the perpetuation of the symptoms of the psychiatric disorders:

Q3 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO OR PERPETUATING MR BAYER'S ONGOING PSYCHOLOGICAL SYMPTOMS:

There are many. He has chronic neck pain which has made him depressed and perpetuates his mood symptoms. It is also a reminder of the helicopter incident. His PTSD symptoms are triggered by his environment. He can't get away from triggers such as police sirens and cars, his wife's uniform as an officer in the AFP. His loss of his previous role in tactical policing is a constant source of distress, which he is unable to counter.

Chronic neck pain. Chronic depression. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Loss of self-esteem. Loss of purpose. Recurrent triggers in his environment.

1. Recurrent triggers in Mr Bayer's environment continued following the payment of the single impairment benefit. Dr Jacobs wrote again to Comcare on 29 May 2022 to explain why his patient would benefit from intensive therapy in Sydney:69

Mr Bayer came to Sydney for intensive therapy in March 2021, 23rd, 24th and 25th March. We were able to work through a range of emotions which are only partially expressed in

telehealth sessions. Mr Bayer was tearful at times rather than extremely angry as he often is. Having time away from Queensland reduced the triggers that he experiences on a daily basis. He was able to venture out and go to the gym and not feel there were people staring at him all the time. The intense work allowed us to stay on track. Over the phone it is too easy to wander off the topic. In intense work the aim is to stay with the emotions and deal with them. Mr Bayer has had multiple losses physically and emotionally.

1. When the claim was made for lump sum compensation for impairment resulting from 'Chronic Adjustment Disorder' on 7 October 2022, Dr Jacobs made the assessment that: "The impairment is severe. Mr Bayer is unemployable. His social functioning is poor. He may stay in bed for many hours in a day. He is a recluse. He has only one friend. His marriage disintegrated. He tries hard with his 2 sons but can lose his temper.'70 Dr Jacobs made a more detailed report of his assessment of the degree of impairment on 31 March 2024.71 He assessed a degree of impairment of 50 percent according to Table 5.1 of the approved Comcare guide representing 'severe disturbances of thinking and/or behaviour which entail potential or actual harm to self and/or others.' He made the point that 'adjustment disorder can be comorbid with other mental disorders e.g. depression. Mr Bayer lost his career and has never adjusted to that. He has never adjusted to his chronic pain. Mr Bayer has lost his marriage and blamed it on his accident and its consequences.' Of some assistance is the comments concerning the clinically significant behaviours:
   1. Marked distress that is out of proportion to the severity or intensity of the stressor taking into account the external context and the cultural factors that might influence symptom severity and presentation.

Mr Bayer has a very powerful need for revenge against the pilot of the helicopter from which he was inappropriately dropped into shallow water, resulting in his physical and psychological injuries. He constantly ruminates for vengeance. He constantly declares his anger at the way he has been treated ever since. He has chronic suicidal ideation with a declared plan.

1. Mr Bayer has significant impairments in social, occupational and other areas of functioning.

Mr Bayer has become reclusive. He sobs all the time. His marriage broke down and he has almost no relationships. He has no female contact. He has no recreations apart from an attempt to learn how to be proficient in Jiu Jitsu. He has lost his career. He is incapable of work. He struggles to do his housework. He does look after his sons regularly but there are occasions when he has to return them to his ex−wife as he is emotionally unable.

1. Dr Jacobs provided another report on 20 October 2024 to Comcare clarifying the distinction to be made between generalised anxiety disorder and social anxiety disorder:72

Over time subsequent to that [16 June 2011] incident Mr Bayer developed a number of physical and psychological conditions. As you are aware he developed chronic Major Depression, PTSD and an Adjustment Disorder.

In addition, Mr Bayer developed Generalised Anxiety Disorder, a condition which was not apparent before his injury. Over time he also developed Social Anxiety Disorder, a condition that certainly was not present before his injury.

Please note that as described in DSM-5 anxiety disorders share features of excessive fear and anxiety. "The anxiety disorders differ from one another in the types of objects or situations that induce fear, anxiety or avoidance behaviour and the associated cognitive ideation" (DSM-5, page 189).

For Mr Bayer his symptoms of Generalised Anxiety Disorder include excessive anxiety and worry all the time. The anxiety and worry are associated with restlessness, difficulty concentrating, significant sleep disturbance and muscle tension. It gives him distress. He constantly worries about his future and that of his sons. He has constant concerns about his physical condition and about his finances.

For Mr Bayer his symptoms of Social Anxiety Disorder are very apparent when he has to take his sons to activities. He covers himself up. He wears "a hoodie", which is inappropriate for a grown man with children. He does not mix with other parents. At events he sits well away other parents for fear of scrutiny. He fears that he will act in a way that will be negatively evaluated. The social situations described above always provoke fear. The social situations are avoided or endured with immense fear. The fear is out of proportion to the actual threat. The fear is persistent and causes clinical distress. It is not due to a substance nor better explained by another mental disorder or medical condition.

The above conditions are anxiety disorders. They did not exist before his injury. They are grouped in a different section of DSM-5 and are considered different conditions. He is significantly affected by these conditions. It is noteworthy that in a depressive illness avoidance is due to having poor motivation and negative emotions. In PTSD avoidance is avoidance of specific situations for fear that the trauma will reoccur. In Generalised anxiety Disorder avoidance is due to excessive fear that something may occur (anticipatory anxiety) in all situations. In Social Anxiety the avoidance is due to a fear of scrutiny. The last two conditions cause significant distress to Mr Bayer and have damaged his ability to have "a normal" life.

1. Dr Jacobs finally reported on 28 February 2025 that his patient did suffer permanent impairment due to adjustment disorder and referred to the report provided by Dr Christopher Slack which accepted three separate psychiatric injuries: PTSD, major depression and an adjustment disorder. He assessed an impairment level of 50 percent in accordance with table 5.1 of the approved Comcare guide in respect of 'severe disturbances of thinking and/or behaviour which entail potential or actual harm to self and/or others.'73 He further referred to his principal report of 31 March 2024 and stated:

Mr Bayer met the criteria for a separate diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder due to his having a very powerful need for revenge against the helicopter pilot. Mr Bayer has also threatened

Comcare staff. They placed a communication restriction on him as a result. They called police due to the threat of harm.

1. In his evidence before the Tribunal, Dr Jacobs clarified that there were, in the end, three different conditions with separate characteristics.

1. Dr Jacobs stated that the research literature accepts that there can be a chronic adjustment disorder extending well beyond the anticipated duration of an adjustment disorder as described in the diagnostic manual DSM-5 and that the particular thoughts are not part of depression: the threatened violence to others (thoughts of torture and killing the pilot responsible for the 16 June 2011) with extreme anger and suicidal ideation. However, he said it reached a point where Comcare imposed a communications regime because Mr Bayer had threatened Comcare officers and that a horrific picture of a Rambo knife had been communicated and the Police were sent to handcuff his patient. He emphasised that these things were not part of a depressive illness but have been described in an adjustment disorder. He particularly noted that this refinement is not contained in the DSM-5 but in the research literature.

1. He told the Tribunal that general anxiety is disorder of 'chronic worry', constantly foretelling bad things may happen, hate of change, worry about health, finances or children. He said that there could be subsets of such a disorder. He thought that generalised anxiety disorder was fairly common, but social anxiety disorder is different, being a particular fear of scrutiny demonstrated by Mr Bayer's periods hiding himself away or of going to his son's sports day wearing a hoodie, not associating with anyone else. At its worst, people affected by social anxiety disorder don't leave house and at times that has been Mr Bayer's case. I have noted above that Dr Jacobs agreed that his assessment of impairment of generalised anxiety disorder at the 100 percent level was not a rating that is reflected in the approved Guide. I also note that although in his evidence before the Tribunal he drew the sharp distinction between social anxiety disorder and generalised anxiety disorder by contrasting the fear of scrutiny, not leaving the house as particular to social anxiety disorder, in his assessment of the level of non-economic loss from generalised anxiety disorder, Dr Jacobs blurred that distinction by describing the effects of that disorder on social relationships as characterised

in part by the same social anxiety '... If he goes to a school sporting function [he wears] a 'hoodie' and dresses in black. He sits away from other parents. He is reclusive ...'74

1. Dr Jacobs was asked in respect of PTSD, major depression and adjustment disorder, about the level of impairment described in Table 5.1 of the approved Guide at the 50 percent level and stated that in each of the three disorders he identified, there was severe disturbance of thinking. In respect of potential or actual harm to self or others, Dr Jacobs stated in respect of the thoughts of revenge and harm associated with the Adjustment Disorder, that criteria was also met. He accepted that there were no behaviours of potential or actual harm to others in the other two disorders but with major depression he stated that his patient did exhibit suicidal thoughts. He reiterated that similar symptoms may exist in all three conditions where they overlap but that each of the three disorders were distinct disorders.

1. Dr Suzanna Goodison is a consultant psychiatrist engaged by Comcare after the proceedings were commenced in order to qualify by examination of Mr Bayer and make assessments of the impairments. She did so and provided her reports of 6 July 2025 (Exhibit R1), with supplementary reports of 27 October 2025 (Exhibit R2) and 5 November 2025 (Exhibit R3).

1. Dr Goodison had one opportunity to examine Mr Bayer in a telehealth consultation on 13 June 2025 lasting about an hour. She also was provided with a large number of prior reports from treaters, rehabilitation assessments, and various correspondent and medical certificates.

1. In her original report Dr Goodison reported that Mr Bayer suffered from 'an adjustment disorder with mixed features of anxiety and low mood, related to his physical injury, the incapacity from this, ongoing chronic pain and his perception of not being supported by the AFP. He has further developed an alcohol use disorder in relation to this injury, to manage his symptoms of distress and ongoing chronic pain.'75 She considered that disorder to be

one that resulted in permanent impairment but in answer to a particular question related to the prior claims for impairment she stated:76

I consider he has suffered a permanent impairment because of the adjustment disorder. I did not consider on screening, that he met threshold for PTSD. He may have previously met threshold for major depressive disorder, given the extent of his symptoms; however, on review today, I consider that he was able to have periods of time where he was free of low mood when he is around his boys and therefore, the adjustment disorder is more appropriate at this time than major depression.

1. Dr Goodison had not been given the prior details of the assessment of impairment for the PTSD or major depression but stated:77

As discussed, I did not consider him at threshold for a diagnosis of PTSD at this stage. I cannot retrospectively opine if he did previously meet threshold for this but Mr Brendan Bayer denied symptoms that would be consistent with PTSD. In regards to major depression, the symptoms of depression would be congruent with his current symptoms that he experiences with the adjustment disorder, it is simply a matter of severity.

At the time of my assessment, I consider that the adjustment disorder was more appropriate at this time. I understand that Mr Brendan Bayers symptoms only started after his initial injury and therefore, the claim relates to that. Therefore, it is immaterial to some degree, whether he experienced a major depression earlier and now an adjustment disorder or vice versa, what is clear is that the symptoms have been precipitated by his injury and are therefore secondary to this.

1. Dr Goodison went on to assess the level of impairment from the adjustment disorder as 20 percent in accordance with the criteria in the approved Guide Table 5.1 identifying 'significant impairments in his self-care and personal hygiene, often not showering for weeks at a time. He is only prompted to do so when he has care of his children. His communication is impaired, in that he is more irritable, socially avoidant and has a contracted social circle at this stage. He finds himself prone to outbursts and irritability with poor distress tolerance.' She elaborated:78

I consider that he meets a 20% threshold, as he has required supervision and direction in activities of daily living from his treating doctors to take medication, and from his GP and pain specialist in regards to managing day-to-day and trying to have a routine. He does not manage this without prompts or having his children, who he described help him with chores and the routine. He has frequent reactions to the stressors of daily living, which cause withdrawal and modification of his activities. He has marked disturbances in his thinking, as evident by the report and his symptoms documented and disturbances in his behaviour, which preclude engagement in day-to-day life or employment. I also consider he has required multiple hospital admissions and has required supervision and direction in those contexts being unable to live independently for those periods.

1. In her evidence before the Tribunal in regard to the degree of impairment, Dr Goodison did not agree with the evidence of Dr Jacobs that his patient exhibited 'severe disturbances of thinking' in relation to PTSD, major depression and adjustment disorder and justified this answer by saying that Mr Bayer did not have severe disturbances of thinking 'all of the time'. She accepted that Mr Bayer had 'marked disturbances of thinking' but he had not exhibited severe disturbances at the time of her assessment and that the 'odd episode here or there' of aggressive or violent outbursts, whether when drinking alcohol or not, did not in her view qualify for the 50 percent assessment for severe disturbances of thinking. When asked about the assumptions made concerning 'severe disturbances of thinking' Dr Goodison said that she considered 'severe' as the 'worst rating' and that when she thought about the worst rating, she conceived of someone who is 'delusional ... probably psychotic ... someone who has lost all touch with reality'. She stated that it was a 'sliding scale' between severe and marked disturbance of thinking and in Mr Bayer's case she accepted that he had 'very disturbed thinking' and that was the basis for her rating. When pointed to the category of 90 percent on Table 5.1 of the approved Guide referring to 'very severe disturbances of thinking' she referred to what she described as 'negative symptoms' which were contrasted to positive signs of psychosis and that such a sufferer at that level of disturbance would need to be in hospital all the time. She maintained that 50 percent severe disturbance at least as delusional but remaining in the community. She accepted that when Mr Bayer is intoxicated and threatening harm to himself and to others, he would meet that severe level but on a 'daily basis', she did not consider that he met that level.

1. Dr Goodison's first report was focussed on the claim for impairment resulting from the adjustment disorder. She did note in her comments on mental state that Mr Bayer presented as socially avoidant and experienced some anxiety symptoms thought the question of generalised anxiety disorder and social anxiety disorder raised or her consideration. In her second report she was asked for her view on any psychological condition in addition to the adjustment disorder she identified to which she answered, after reviewing reports from Dr Jacobs and Dr Slack, it was 'reasonable to accept that Mr Brendan Bayer did suffer from social anxiety disorder and a generalised anxiety disorder additionally to the ongoing chronic adjustment disorder (when worsened major depression) and PTSD.'79 She went on to state 'having reviewed all the information, I am satisfied that Mr Brendan Bayer does

meet threshold for social anxiety disorder and generalised anxiety disorder additionally at the times of those assessments and periods of time he was under review by regular treating clinicians.' She further stated that these disorders psychological conditions were 'significantly contributed by and precipitated by the issues surrounding his employment with the AFP'.80

1. It was in her third report of and 5 November 2025 that Dr Goodison accepted that generalised anxiety disorder was a single distinct condition incorporating features of a social anxiety disorder. She explained:81

I consider on review of the retrospective medical evidence and examinations by other psychiatrists, that Mr Brendan Bayer does suffer from an additional anxiety disorder which would explain his more generalised anxiety symptoms, not explained by PTSD or the adjustment disorder. Most notably, I note the social anxiety and difficulty in interacting with groups and others, as well as more generalised anxious symptoms. Although heightened anxiety can be a feature of PTSD, it is related to reminders of the trauma or concerns about repeating trauma. The anxiety with the adjustment disorder relates to his injuries and pain but is also not "generalised". I consider the level of impairment reported from anxious symptoms which have at times been pervasive (including on at least one occasion when he soiled himself in a social situation due to severe anxiety) to be more in keeping with generalised anxiety disorder than explained by PTSD or an adjustment disorder alone. I note that this anxiety has been conceptualised as two separate anxiety disorders by Dr Jacobs, as both social anxiety disorder and generalised anxiety disorder, however I prefer the single diagnosis as this does cover social aspects of the anxiety. A GAD diagnosis explains the impairments across a range of psychosocial functioning as opposed to a limited area of simply social functioning. I consider that Mr Bayer does have broad generalised anxiety features and symptoms which do include social anxiety, however I would not consider this to be two separate diagnoses, but rather a single diagnosis that encompasses the heightened anxiety. This has persisted for more than six months, which has been impairing him across a wide range of psychosocial functioning.

1. The resolution of the issues in dispute requires consideration of the multiplicity of injuries. Comcare's reviewable decision in the application number 2024/5595 requires an answer to the question whether the impairment sum claimed has already been paid in respect of the accepted conditions of PTSD and major depressive disorder. Comcare submits that the adjustment disorder subject of the claim is identical to the previously compensated major depressive disorder. I have reviewed the determination of 1 April 2022 to identify what was actually compensated in that claim and for reasons that I will further elaborate below, it is difficult to determine which injury was compensated as a 'final assessment', whether there

were two injuries properly assessed in accordance with law or whether Comcare's assessment miscarried. The argument against further lump sum compensation developed in the reviewable decision relies upon acceptance of compensation for major depression in 2022 such that there could not be an increase in the level of impairment of at least 10 percent as required by subsection 25(4) of the SRC Act.

1. Comcare, in opening the case, conceded that Mr Bayer has a further psychiatric injury identified as 'general anxiety disorder', subject of the claim made by Mr Bayer on 19 April 2024 that is the subject of the review application in 2025/4711. Again, there were two separate claims made for both Chronic Adjustment Disorder and Social Anxiety Disorder and it is necessary, before embarking on assessing the level of impairment resulting, to determine whether there are two separate injuries.

1. Mr Bayer insists that there are, in addition to his accepted PTSD, MDD and now General Anxiety Disorder (GAD), further injuries and impairments of Chronic Adjustment Disorder and Social Anxiety Disorder as separate and distinct injuries from the other disorders. He points to the fact that he has been awarded a Gold Card pursuant to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (VEA) for 13 separate conditions. The documents provided to the Tribunal include the following list of at least 11 of those conditions and the date of acceptance for the purposes of the VEA:

(a) Cervical spondylosis with C6 radiculopathy (15 May 2014).

(b) Adjustment disorder (15 May 2014).

(c) Depressive disorder (15 May 2014).

(d) Alcohol use disorder (21 February 2015).

(e) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (23 September 2015).

(f) Anxiety Disorder (6 June 2019).

(g) Prescription Drug Addiction or Dependence (6 June 2019).

(h) Social Anxiety Disorder (19 February 2023).

(i) Erectile dysfunction (19 February 2023).

(j) Binge eating disorder (19 February 2023).

(k) Bruxism (12 June 2024)

1. The provisions of the VEA are sufficiently different to the SRC Act to require separate examination of the evidence in respect of claims for injury and the consequential compensation. Whether any or all these conditions represent separate injuries or different facets or impairments flowing from a smaller range of injuries must be determined on the evidence.

1. The treating psychiatrist Dr Jacobs stated above that the various disorders are 'comorbid.' I find that to be an expression which should be taken to mean two or more injuries, whether physical or mental that co-exist. That understanding is different to an injury with differing or multiple diagnoses. What is important to identify is the injuries which are relevantly connected to employment so as to entitle Mr Bayer to compensation. For reasons I spoke of in an earlier decision, YNCJ and Comcare [2025] ARTA 1293 (YNCJ):82

The question of whether a diagnostic entity, causally related to an injury, amounts to a separate injury, is a necessary consideration when considering the assessment of permanent impairment for the purposes of compensation. That is so because of the provisions of subsections 24(5) and (6) of the SRC Act. The degree of impairment must be expressed as a percentage and the degree of permanent impairment resulting from 'an injury' must be determined under the provisions of the approved Guide.

In Canute the High Court stated that 'injury' is not used 'in a global sense to describe the general condition of the employee following an incident'. Further, the Court identified fault in the decision-making process was the assumption that multiple impairments arose from the same physical injury and that the Tribunal at first instance had treated the concept of 'injury' as co-extensive with the workplace incident. The High Court ruled that this was not consistent with the definition of 'injury' in the SRC Act allowing from multiple injuries to arise from any incident or accident.83

1. The finding of injury for the purposes of the SRC Act is not dictated by diagnostic categories. I adopt what I stated in YNCJ on this respect:
   1. The finding of psychiatric injury, particularly where the manifestation is secondary to some other physical injury must look to its manifestation, its relationship to the initiating injury, and its clinical development to determine its nature.
   2. It is not an analysis that is dictated by diagnostic categories. It is well to consider that in compensation law, the finding of injury is not dependent upon the existence of a

83 Canute v Comcare [2006] HCA 47; (2006) 226 CLR 535 at [10], [23].

diagnosis. The Federal Court in Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439 (Mooi) accepted that while it was essential that before a mental injury was accepted for compensation it was necessary that there be a 'condition that is outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour', that is a 'clinically significant' condition, that might be shown even though the 'condition cannot be identified with the label of a recognised medical condition.'84 In the experience of workers compensation disputes, '[n]othing is more common than that medical diagnoses change and evolve, or are or become various.' (Abrahams v Comcare [2006] FCA 1829; (2006) 93 ALD 147) (Abrahams).85

Adjustment disorder is a separate injury to major depressive disorder

1. On the central question in application number 2024/5595 I find that the chronic adjustment disorder subject of the claim for lump sum compensation for impairment made on 7 October 2022 is a separate and distinct injury.

1. In coming to that conclusion, I rely on the following matters:

(a) Dr Jacobs has been the longstanding specialist psychiatrist who had had an opportunity over 12 years to observe the development of quite distinct psychiatric injuries that go beyond mere variant diagnoses and has contrasted quite separate features in the chronic adjustment disorder that separate this injury from major depressive disorder. I accept the basis put forward in evidence from Dr Jacobs that chronic adjustment disorder encompasses particular thoughts that are not part of depression such as the threatened violence to others, Mr Bayer's thoughts of torture and killing the pilot responsible for the 16 June 2011. While he included the symptoms of extreme anger and suicidal ideation as features of the chronic adjustment disorder that could overlap with depression, the threat of violence to others is such as to properly describe it as a distinct injury.

(b) I recognise that in many cases, an adjustment disorder may be part of a continuum from that DSM category to chronic adjustment disorder to major depression. I made that finding in YNCJ referred to above. That relates to the development over time. Dr Jacobs' first diagnosis was actually of major depression in 2013. He accepted in cross-examination that the adjustment disorder that revealed itself more clearly over time was present earlier, but he has consistently held the two as not part of a continuum of deterioration but as two separate disorders. I do not accept that this

84 (1996) 69 FCR 439 at 443-444 per Drummond J.

85 [2006] FCA 1829; (2006) 93 ALD 147 at 153 [21] per Madgwick J.

was a case of an adjustment disorder at times being serious enough to be a major depression and at other times, remitting to an adjustment disorder. These two disorders have co-existed as separate injuries.

(c) Dr Jacobs is not the only psychiatrist to identify the disorders PTSD, major depression as well as adjustment disorder as separate conditions. Dr Christopher Slack also reached that conclusion in his report of 28 May 2024 identified three separate conditions, seeing the major depression as distinct from the adjustment disorder.

1. This adjustment disorder is, like the major depressive disorder, a secondary or consequential condition that arose due to the experience of the consequences of the injury of 16 June 2011. It is no less compensable for that. I refer again to the discussion in YNCJ where I noted the familiar case of 'mental or nervous, or hysterical effects' of a compensable physical injury which can become so pronounced that they ought to be regarded as a separate injury and which may continue even in the event that the originating physical injury recovers.86

Generalised anxiety disorder encompasses the symptoms of social anxiety

1. In respect of the claim for social anxiety disorder, I find that on the evidence presented, it is properly to be considered as part of the distinct generalised anxiety disorder. I fully recognise that the DSM manual provides a separate identification for this disorder but on the evidence presented, there is such a close relationship of the symptoms between what the DSM may separately classify as to make a single injury. I rely on the following matters in this respect:

(a) Dr Jacobs, though he defined two separate disorders, merged the two in his assessment of the impairment of generalised anxiety disorder. As I noted above, blurred that distinction by describing the effects of that disorder on social relationships as characterised in part by the same social anxiety in completing the noneconomic loss questionnaire: '... If he goes to a school sporting function [he

86 [2025] ARTA 1293 at [115]-[116] and referring to Eaves v Blaenchlydach Colliery Company Limited [1909] 2

wears] a 'hoodie' and dresses in black. He sits away from other parents. He is reclusive ...'87

(b) That blurring tends to favour the opinion that the specific anxiety feature affecting social activity is best seen as part of the generalised anxiety disorder.

(c) Dr Goodison's reasoning in this respect is quite sound. The mere existence of separate diagnostic categories in DSM need not dictate the finding of an injury. Her final report stated 'that Mr Bayer does have broad generalised anxiety features and symptoms which do include social anxiety, however I would not consider this to be two separate diagnoses, but rather a single diagnosis that encompasses the heightened anxiety.'88

(d) I further find the comments of Dr Jacobs in the claim for social anxiety disorder to the effect of determining the degree of permanent impairment for that condition as 'not quantifiable' and the repetition of the same social criteria such as wearing a 'hoodie' and not engaging socially or avoiding groups, as he included for the assessment of non-economic loss, tends to confirm that the two diagnoses are best seen as one injury.89

The 1 April 2022 assessment of impairment for PTSD and major depression miscarried

1. Because of the Respondent's argument that the prior assessment conducted on 1 April 2022 essentially assessed the adjustment disorder subject of the review in 2024/5595 I was required to examine that decision. The decision is fundamentally flawed. At best, it compensated one injury only, not the two claimed. As the evidence shows, Comcare had accepted liability at that time for two separate psychiatric injuries:

(a) The Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a traumatic injury, being a mental injury that meets the description of injury in subsection 5A(1)(b) of the SRC Act definition of injury. That injury was sustained on 16 June 2011 arising out of Mr Bayer's employment with the Commonwealth. Though mental conditions are commonly

referred to as 'ailments' the definition of injury in the primary sense caters for mental injury and due to PTSD's traumatic nature it is most apt to characterise it in this manner. According to the determination of 29 April 2024 and reviewable decision of 26 June 2024, lump sum compensation for permanent impairment for this injury has already been assessed and paid.

(b) The major depressive disorder is clearly a secondary or consequential condition that arose due to the experience of chronic pain. It is no less compensable for that. I refer again to the discussion in YNCJ referred to above. Comcare accepted liability for 'Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent Episode' (the descriptor coming from the International Classification of Diseases and Injuries (ICD-9-CM 2nd Edition) in its determination of 27 February 2014.90

1. Comcare's task in assessing the level of impairment was to examine each injury separately. In determining the degree of impairment, the decision maker stated that in determining the percentage level of impairment, Comcare 'preferred the opinion of Dr Jacobs, noting that he has been your treating psychiatrist since 2013.' It should be recalled that Dr Jacobs gave separate assessments of at least 50 percent for each injury.91 However, the entitlement was determined to be based on a single assessment of the degree of impairment of 50 percent based on the differing opinion of Dr Calvin:

Comcare has concluded upon review of the submissions that that your PTSD and MDD, whilst diagnostically separate accepted conditions, are indistinguishable from one another for the purposes of assessing your WPI. Therefore, accepting Dr Calvin's view, they have been determined as one condition.

1. It is this very approach that the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has found to be erroneous. In Robson v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation [2013] FCAFC 101; (2013) 214 FCR 1 (Robson) the Tribunal at first instance gave a single assessment of three distinct psychiatric injuries - a PTSD, a major depression and an aggravation of the PTSD in a separate injury. The Full Court set that decision aside saying, 'where the same impairment was alleged, the matter had to be judged by reference to the "particular identified effect" of each injury.' That decision was an application of the decision of the High Court of Australia in Fellowes v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (2009) 240 CLR 28 (Fellowes).

1. Comcare was obliged to assess the claims for impairment of PTSD and major depression separately. The delegate did in fact find the level of impairment of 50 percent, adopting Dr Jacobs' opinion in respect of major depression. The claim in respect of PTSD was assessed at 60 percent by Dr Jacobs. However, to then adopt Dr Calvin's view that the conditions were 'indistinguishable' when in fact they were separate injuries was impermissible.

1. It is an astonishing result when considering that Comcare had issued a Jurisdictional Policy Advice No. 2014/05 as early as 1 May 2014 describing the effects of the decision in Canute, Fellowes and Robson and providing illustrative examples of the manner in which decision makers ought to approach their task, Example 5 is illuminating:

Example 5: An employee has an accepted PTSD claim due to a traumatic incident in the workplace and receives a PI rating of 40% WPI under Table 5.1 (Psychiatric conditions). Sometime later, he suffers another injury - Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD) - which is also work-related. The PI assessment reveals that his second injury would produce approximately 50% WPI on its own under Table 5.1. This WPI rating represents the effect the PPD would have had on a hypothetical normal healthy person, with no previous history of mental illness.

In example 5, the PI assessor has correctly sought to assess each injury in isolation. The employee's total PI in this example, for both his injuries, is 90% WPI (40% + 50%) because the impairment arising from each injury has been considered a separate claim for PI.

The Robson decision makes it clear that it is not appropriate to discount compensation in situations like the example described (where the impairment is assessed under a functional table). That is, the amount the employee had already been paid for their first injury (PTSD) cannot be deducted from the amount determined for their second injury (PPD) which would result in the employee receiving 50% WPI in total for both injuries (that is, 40% for the PTSD and then a further 10% on top for the overall increase in WPI due to the PPD).

1. Comcare's decision of 1 April 2022 does not follow the correct statutory test as illuminated in the decisions of the superior courts and emphasised by Comcare's own jurisdiction policy advice.

1. I have no present jurisdiction to review this decision of 1 April 2022. No application for review was ever made for that decision. However, were Mr Bayer to seek reconsideration of that decision, albeit out of time, I suggest that it would be difficult for Comcare to refuse to grant extension within which to have that decision reviewed in the light of the interests of justice.

Mr Bayer's percentage level of impairment from chronic adjustment disorder is 50 percent

1. I now move to the assessment of the level of impairment resulting from the chronic adjustment disorder.
2. I consider that the assessment made by Dr Jacobs is the accurate assessment and that there is a level of 50 percent impairment in respect of chronic adjustment disorder just as there is, on his evidence, in respect of the PTSD and major depressive disorder. I find that the assessment is appropriate for the following reasons:

(a) The record of disturbances of thinking, the thoughts of self-harm and of harm to others has reached a level of seriousness that in my view should be classed as severe.

(b) I do not accept that in order to reach the level of 'severe' in respect of disturbances of thinking that Mr Bayer, or any other impaired person, should need to demonstrate a disorder that a psychiatrist would classify as delusional or psychotic. I appreciate that this is how Dr Goodison conceived of the gradations of disturbance identified in Table 5.1 of the approved Comcare guide but there is nothing in the guide itself that requires the existence of psychosis or delusion. I suspect that Dr Goodison was reflecting a view taken by the Comcare decision maker who, in rejecting Dr Jacobs' assessment of 50 percent said: 'To meet the criteria for severe disturbances ...in line with The Guide, psychotic thinking or delusional thinking must be present. When considering The Guide to assess the 50% WPI for an adjustment disorder, according to Dr Jacobs report and existing case law, you have been severely impaired twice by an adjustment disorder considering the impact of what has already been determined for your permanent impairment claim for PTSD.'92 Counsel for Comcare did not take me to any of this 'existing case law' in submissions. There are some notes to Table 5.1 of the approved Guide that refer to definitions of 'direction' or 'supervision' but not as to how the adjective 'severe' in relation to 'disturbances of thinking and/or behaviour entailing potential or actual harm to self and/or others' is to be interpreted.

(c) Table 5.1 of the approved Guide is not framed in language that is peculiar to psychiatry. One of the elements of an assessment of impairment at the level of 10 percent requires the presence of 'lack of conscience directed behaviour', a matter assessable by a religious confessor or a moral philosopher rather than a psychiatrist. The assessment is not the peculiar province of those trained in medicine but to be

made by Comcare and those sitting in review of Comcare's decision. The adjective 'severe' in relation to the disturbances of thinking and/or behaviour is not a technical term. It is to be given an ordinary meaning.

(d) There is no recourse to any other Guide. The approved Guide proclaims that the assessment tables are 'based on the concept of whole person impairment' drawn from the American Medical Association's Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 5th Edition 2001 (AMA 5).' The Principles of Assessment set out in Part 1 of the Comcare approved Guide provide that if 'an employee's impairment is of a kind that cannot be assessed in accordance with' the Comcare approved Guide, an assessment may be made in accordance with AMA 5, save for certain types of impairments, including 'mental and behavioural impairments (psychiatric conditions)'. That would appear to take account of the difficulty of applying a percentage impairment for the purposes of assessing the degree of impairment since AMA 5's methods of evaluating impairment have no such percentage measure for psychiatric impairment, declaring that unlike some organic systems, 'there are no precise measures of impairment in mental disorders.'93

(e) The Tribunal decision in Robson and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2012] AATA 809 concerning the degree of disturbance examined the suicide attempts and potential aggression toward others. This was not criticised on appeal. It did not require the disturbances to be present every day. It is sufficient that these disturbances be recurrently part of the impaired person's psychiatric make up.

(f) I have read over the reports of Dr Jacobs which are numerous and identify repeated patterns of disturbed thinking, suicidality, threats of serious harm to others, planning to kill the helicopter pilot he thought responsible for the accident of 16 June 2011, harm to Comcare officers that resulted in a modified communication protocol which I accept reflect severe disturbances of both thinking and behaviour that entail actual or potential harm to self or others.

93 AMA 5, Chapter 14 'Mental and Behavioural Disorders', 14.3 'A Method of Evaluating Psychiatric Impairment', page 361. The Guide continues: 'The use of percentages implies a certainty that does not exist. Percentages are likely to be used inflexibly by adjudicators, who then are less likely to take into account the many factors that influence mental and behavioural impairment.'

Non-economic loss from chronic adjustment disorder

1. The assessment of non-economic loss in respect of the chronic adjustment disorder can be dealt with briefly. Dr Jacobs assisted with the assessment in the claim form completed on 7 October 2022.94

1. Dr Goodison, in her evidence, dealt with the same assessment of non-economic loss but disagreed with Dr Jacobs in several respects.

1. In submissions, Comcare noted that there were some areas of agreement. In particular, the score for mobility of 1 might be conceded and there were scores assessed closely by the two assessors. I shall set out my own assessment based on the evidence I have heard, taking into account the various opinions expressed by the principal medical witnesses:

(a) Pain - 0. The Guide requires this to be an assessment of physical pain such as could be treated by analgesic or similar medication and that is not a feature of the psychiatric disorder under consideration.

(b) Suffering - 5. I find that Dr Jacob's assessment reflecting 'Symptoms of mental distress arising from accepted condition predominate over thinking. Activities severely restricted. Treatment of no real benefit in controlling or relieving symptoms.' is accurate. Dr Goodison was equivocal as to whether 4 or 5.

(c) Mobility - 1. Dr Jacobs identified a periodic affect from the disorder on mobility and Dr Goodison was prepared to concede this as a possibility.

(d) Social Relations - 5. Dr Goodison thought that a score of 4 might be appropriate but having considered the very severe effects of the disturbances of thinking and behaviour I find that Mr Bayer's score ought to be 5 and reflect 'Difficulties relating socially to anyone'.

(e) Recreation and leisure - 0. The gist of this assessment is to determine whether the impairment from the psychiatric injury caused the reduction or cessation of various recreation or leisure activities. The evidence shows that the restrictions claimed on lifting weights, playing cricket, gold and surfing were due to the physical neck injury.

(f) Other loss - 0. The claim of 3 does not accord with the Guide's descriptor which focus on physical disadvantages that cause physical variation of premises, diet, life support machines.

(g) Loss of life expectancy - 0. I do not accept that the risk of suicide can be properly quantified to a definite loss of more than 10 but less than 20 years of life expectancy. Other diseases have quite definite epidemiological estimates of mortality (for example, mesothelioma) where accurate estimates can be given of the shortening of life resulting from such disease. However, a risk of suicide does not have such a base of evidence that I could make a definite finding in Mr Bayer's case.

1. Applying the weightings in the Guide to achieve a final score, I find that Mr Bayer achieves a rating of 6.1/15 of 40.667 percent for Part B of the non-economic loss assessment provided for in subsection 27(2) of the SRC Act.

Mr Bayer's percentage level of impairment from generalised anxiety disorder is remitted to the respondent for assessment

1. Having found that Mr Bayer, as conceded by Comcare, does suffer from generalised anxiety disorder there is jurisdiction in the Tribunal to assess the degree of impairment. It is not essential that Comcare previously made such an assessment. The primary decision maker was asked to consider the claim for lump sum compensation for impairment and non-economic loss pursuant to section 24 and 27 of the SRC Act. That Comcare's primary decision maker and reviewable decision maker thought it sufficient to reject that claim on the basis that there was no liability pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act was sufficient to deal with the matter, that does not exhaust the Tribunal's jurisdiction. To overlook the specific claim made pursuant to sections 24 and 27 of the SRC Act in the decision of 2 June 2025, the Respondent had implicitly rejected it and that amounts to a reviewable decision pursuant to the ART Act (see Telstra Corporation Ltd v Kotevski [2013] FCA 27; (2013) 209 FCR 558).95

1. However, I have no viable evidence before me upon which to make an assessment. I have referred to Dr Jacobs' assessment of 100 percent for the generalised anxiety disorder in

95 [2013] FCA 27; (2013) 209 FCR 558, 571-573 [52], [57] per Rares J.

making assisting with the assessment in the claim form, but he conceded in evidence that this was not an assessment pursuant to Table 5.1 of the approved Comcare guide.

1. Dr Goodison's final report of 5 November 2025 conceded the existence of the injury of generalised anxiety disorder but made no assessment of the degree of impairment that resulted.

1. I must set the decision to deny liability aside, but remit the matter of the assessment pursuant to sections 24 and 27 of the SRC Act to Comcare for assessment in the light of the findings I have made concerning the injury, its relationship to employment and the permanence of impairment.

1. Accordingly, in matter number 2024/5595, the reviewable decision of 26 June 2024 is set aside and in substitution the Tribunal decides:

(h) Mr Bayer suffers from a chronic adjustment disorder, separate and distinct from other psychiatric disorders, that entitles him to compensation pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act.

(i) The chronic adjustment disorder results in impairment that is likely to continue indefinitely. The degree of that assessment is assessed at 50 percent in accordance with Table 5.1 of the approved Comcare guide (Edition 3.0).

(j) Mr Bayer is entitled to compensation pursuant to section 24 of the SRC Act at the rate of 50 percent.

(k) Mr Bayer is entitled to compensation pursuant to section 27(2) of the SRC Act as follows:

(iii) Part A at the rate of 50 percent.

(iv) Part B at the rate of 40.667 percent.

1. In matter number 2025/4711, the reviewable decision of 2 June 2025 is set aside and in substitution the Tribunal decides:

(l) Mr Bayer suffers from a generalised anxiety disorder, separate and distinct from other psychiatric disorders, that entitles him to compensation pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act.

(m) The generalised anxiety disorder results in impairment that is likely to continue indefinitely.

(n) The matter is remitted to the respondent for assessment of the degree of impairment and non-economic loss pursuant to sections 24 and 27 of the SRC Act.

Date of hearing: 18 and 19 November 2025. Appearances:

Applicant Mr Brendan Bayer, self-represented. Respondent: Mr Brendan Kelly, instructed by HBA Legal.