Anand and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Dr Anand against a decision of Comcare. Dr Anand sought to claim the cost of weekly massage treatment as medical treatment under the relevant Act, which Comcare had refused. The dispute centred on whether the massage treatment constituted "medical treatment" for the purposes of the Act and, if so, whether it was reasonable for Dr Anand to obtain such treatment in the circumstances.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the weekly massage treatment provided to Dr Anand qualified as "medical treatment" as defined by section 16 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). Secondly, the court had to consider whether, assuming it was medical treatment, the treatment was "reasonable" for Dr Anand to obtain in relation to his compensable injury.

In reaching its decision, the court reasoned that to deny Dr Anand access to a treatment that offered objective benefit in relieving pain and improving functional capacity, particularly when the alternative might be more invasive treatments, would be unreasonable. The court applied the principles of reasonableness in the context of medical treatment under the Act, finding that the massage treatment was of benefit and contributed to Dr Anand's well-being and functional capacity. Consequently, the court set aside Comcare's decision of 21 September 2015 and substituted its own finding that weekly massage treatment qualified as medical treatment under section 16 of the Act and was reasonable treatment obtained in relation to Dr Anand's injury.