Agius and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Agius against a decision by Comcare regarding the reasonableness of ongoing acupuncture and massage treatment for her accepted injury. The dispute centred on whether this treatment continued to be necessary and beneficial in the long term. The decision was made by Mr A. Maryniak QC, Member.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the ongoing acupuncture and massage treatment provided to Ms Agius was reasonable in relation to her accepted injury. This required an assessment of the evidence regarding the efficacy and benefits of such treatment, particularly in light of its duration and the nature of Ms Agius' condition.

The Tribunal considered expert evidence from Associate Professor Love and Mr Harry Papagoras, a physiotherapist. Associate Professor Love opined that while the treatments provided temporary symptomatic relief, they were not curative and did not result in long-term benefits, suggesting a dependency had developed. Mr Papagoras, applying the principles of the Clinical Framework for the Delivery of Health Services, concluded that the passive nature of the treatment, providing only short-term subjective pain relief, was inconsistent with the framework's emphasis on demonstrable functional improvement, self-management, SMART goals, and evidence-based practice. He noted a lack of functional improvement despite over 20 years of treatment. On balance, the Tribunal found the evidence did not support the ongoing treatment being anything more than temporary relief and therefore not "reasonable".

The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision dated 9 November 2016.