Comcare v Watson

Comcare, the statutory body responsible for workers' compensation claims in the Australian Capital Territory, sought judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that it was liable to pay compensation to Ms Amanda Watson for the costs of a gym membership. The Tribunal had found that the membership fees were payable as part of her medical treatment under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The court was required to determine the proper construction of the terms "therapeutic treatment" and "at the direction of" within the context of the statutory definition of "medical treatment".

Justice Finn found that the Tribunal had misconstrued the statutory language. The court held that the term "at the direction of" required an imperative element, meaning that a doctor must prescribe a specific course of treatment that is therapeutic. The court rejected the Tribunal's view that the term could be interpreted to mean "guidance" and found that the treatment must be prescribed by a doctor to be considered medical treatment. The court also clarified that "therapeutic treatment" included treatment aimed at alleviating an injury, not just curing a disease.

Given the Tribunal's erroneous construction of the statutory definition, the court held that it had not properly applied the definition to the facts of the case. The court noted that the Tribunal had not considered whether the gym program met the statutory requirements from 1991 onwards, when Ms Watson resumed her gym attendance. The court set aside the Tribunal's decision and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to be heard and decided again.