Comcare v Watson

[1997] FCA 149

CATCHWORDS

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation - whether membership fees at a gym are compensable as therapeutic treatment undertaken at the direction of a medical practitioner - meaning of ‘therapeutic treatment’ - meaning of ‘at the direction of’.

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) s 16(1)

Thiele v Commonwealth of Australia (1990) 11 AAR 376

COMCARE (Applicant) v AMANDA WATSON (Respondent)
No ACT G22 of 1996

FINN J
CANBERRA
11 MARCH 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY     )
  )    No. ACT G22 of 1996
DISTRICT REGISTRY                )
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN:  COMCARE
  Applicant

AND:     AMANDA WATSON
  Respondent

COURT:FINN J

PLACE:CANBERRA

DATE:        11 MARCH 1997

MINUTES OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

(i)the decision of the Tribunal be set aside;  and

(ii)the case be remitted to the Tribunal to be heard and decided again.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY     )
  )    No. ACT G22 of 1996
DISTRICT REGISTRY                )
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN:  COMCARE
  Applicant

AND:     AMANDA WATSON
  Respondent

COURT:FINN J

PLACE:CANBERRA

DATE:        11 MARCH 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal by Comcare from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) which, in setting aside the decision then under review, held Comcare liable under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), s16(1) (“the Act”) to pay Ms Watson compensation in respect of the cost of medical treatment obtained in relation to an injury she sustained which, it is agreed, was a compensable injury for the purposes of the Act.

The principal question of law Comcare raises relates to the construction of the terms “medical treatment” as used in
s16(1) and as defined in s4 of the Act. It will be necessary below to refer both to factual matters and to the Tribunal’s Reasons for decision. It is appropriate first to detail the provisions of the Act relevant to this appeal.

The Statutory Provisions

Section 16(1) provides:

“Where an employee suffers an injury, Comcare is liable to pay, in respect of the cost of medical treatment obtained in relation to the injury (being treatment that it was reasonable for the employee to obtain in the circumstances), compensation of such amount as Comcare determines is appropriate to that medical treatment.”

“Medical treatment” is defined in s4 to mean (inter alia):

“(b)therapeutic treatment obtained at the direction of a legally qualified medical practitioner;”

“Therapeutic treatment” in turn is defined in the same section merely as including:

“an examination, test or analysis done for the purpose of diagnosing, or treatment given for the purpose of alleviating, an injury.”

Relating these to the instant case, the injury Ms Watson
sustained (on 7 May 1985) was tenosynovitis of the right arm when employed in a steno-secretary capacity in a government department. The medical treatment for which the Tribunal ordered compensation paid was an exercise program at a gymnasium. This,…