Brideson by guardian Lynette Brideson and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Lynette Brideson, as guardian for Mr Brideson, against a decision by the Australian Capital Territory (Comcare) concerning a claim for compensation. The dispute centred on whether a psychiatric assistance dog, named Ted, constituted a form of medical treatment or an aid for the purposes of the relevant workers' compensation legislation. The case was heard by Deputy President Gary Humphries Ao.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the psychiatric assistance dog was a form of medical treatment under the Act, whether it was obtained at the direction of a legally qualified medical practitioner, and whether its acquisition was reasonable. The Tribunal was required to interpret the provisions of the Act concerning medical treatment and aids, considering the evidence presented regarding the capabilities and benefits of psychiatric assistance dogs.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on a strict construction of the Act. It found that a psychiatric assistance dog did not meet the definition of "medical treatment." While acknowledging that animals can play a role in supporting injured workers, as evidenced by seeing-eye dogs, the Tribunal concluded that the Act did not extend to providing compensation for the costs of assistance animals. The evidence presented, including expert veterinary opinion and statements from Mr Brideson's former treating psychologist, was considered insufficient to establish that the dog was a necessary medical treatment or a compensable aid under the existing legislative framework. The Tribunal noted that while there might be a lacuna in the Act regarding assistance animals, it was not at liberty to alter the intent of the law.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision dated 24 November 2016, meaning Mr Brideson's claim for the psychiatric assistance dog was not allowed.