Bennett and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Bennett against a decision by Comcare to affirm a determination that proposed physiotherapy treatment was not reasonable treatment in relation to her accepted repetitive strain injury to her right arm. The dispute arose from Comcare's assessment that the physiotherapy treatment did not align with the principles of the Clinical Framework for the Delivery of Health Services, deeming it not effective, empowering, goal-focused, evidence-based, or possessing a biopsychosocial approach, and therefore not clinically justifiable or reasonable. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) heard the matter in Perth.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Comcare was liable to pay Ms Bennett compensation for the proposed physiotherapy treatment under section 16 of the *Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971* (Cth). This overarching question required the Tribunal to determine three specific points: firstly, whether the proposed physiotherapy treatment was obtained, or would be obtained, "in relation to" Ms Bennett's accepted injury; secondly, if so, whether the treatment constituted "medical treatment"; and thirdly, if it was medical treatment, whether it was "reasonable in the circumstances" for Ms Bennett to obtain it.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed physiotherapy treatment, even if undertaken, would not be considered "in relation to" Ms Bennett's accepted injury as required by section 16 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to consider the further issues of whether the treatment qualified as "medical treatment" or whether it was "reasonable in the circumstances" to obtain. The decision affirmed Comcare's determination.