Chalfont and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Chalfont against a decision of Comcare, which had refused to compensate him for the cost of exercise shoes. Mr Chalfont had suffered a tear of the lateral cartilage of his left knee, an injury accepted as compensable by Comcare. The dispute centred on whether the exercise footwear constituted "medical treatment" for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth).

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the exercise shoes were reasonably necessary medical treatment for Mr Chalfont's accepted compensable injury. This involved an interpretation of the term "medical treatment" as defined and applied within the framework of the Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that while exercise and footwear might be beneficial for rehabilitation, the exercise shoes themselves did not fall within the ordinary meaning of "medical treatment" as contemplated by the Act. The Tribunal noted that the provision of footwear, even if for therapeutic purposes, was generally not considered medical treatment unless it was a specific prosthetic or orthotic device directly addressing the injury in a way that standard footwear could not. In this instance, the exercise shoes were found to be general footwear rather than a medical aid.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of Comcare, finding that Comcare was not liable to compensate Mr Chalfont for the cost of the exercise shoes under section 39 of the Act.