Bartlett and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Mr Bartlett, against a decision by Comcare to deny funding for ongoing physiotherapy treatment. The applicant had sustained a musculo-ligamentous injury to his lower lumbar spine, or an aggravation of degenerative changes, in 1989. He had received physiotherapy treatment for many years following this injury, and sought to continue this treatment, arguing it was necessary to alleviate his ongoing symptoms.

The court was required to determine whether the physiotherapy treatment sought by the applicant constituted "medical treatment" under the relevant legislation, and if so, whether it was obtained "in relation to" the accepted injury. Specifically, the court had to consider if the treatment was therapeutic and provided under appropriate direction, and whether the applicant continued to suffer from the original injury or its effects to a degree that warranted ongoing treatment.

The court found that physiotherapy treatment, when provided by a qualified physiotherapist under the recommendation of a medical practitioner, did meet the definition of "medical treatment" under the Act. However, the court placed significant weight on the medical evidence presented, particularly from A/Prof McGill, who opined that the applicant's ongoing symptoms were primarily due to degenerative changes associated with aging, rather than the original 1989 injury. While acknowledging that physiotherapy might offer some temporary relief, A/Prof McGill stated it would not alter the underlying degenerative condition. The court accepted this expert opinion, concluding that the effects of the applicant's 1989 lumbar spine injury had ceased.

Consequently, the court determined that the applicant was not entitled to further treatment funding under sections 16 and 4 of the Act, as the ongoing symptoms were not sufficiently linked to the accepted injury. The decision under review, which affirmed the denial of funding, was therefore affirmed.