Cremona and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, brought by the Applicant, Ms Cremona, against Comcare. The Applicant sought compensation for household and gardening services and for an MRI scan, alleging these were reasonably required as a result of her accepted somatisation disorder. Comcare had affirmed decisions denying these claims.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant continued to suffer from somatisation disorder, whether she reasonably required gardening and household services as a result of this condition, whether the MRI scan constituted medical treatment, and if so, whether it was treatment obtained in relation to her accepted injury and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Tribunal found that while the Applicant did suffer from somatisation disorder, expert evidence indicated that the nature of this disorder precluded a finding of physical disability that would necessitate household and gardening services. The disorder was characterised as a compulsion or propensity to "do" rather than "have" or "suffer" from a condition, with the individual seeking acknowledgement of physical problems or obtaining a benefit. The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant's behaviour was consistent with this, and that providing such services would perpetuate her behaviour. Regarding the MRI scan, the Tribunal determined it constituted medical treatment, but was not obtained in relation to the accepted injury, nor was it reasonable in the circumstances of the Applicant's condition.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decisions, finding that the Applicant did not require household or gardening services as a result of her accepted somatisation disorder, and that the MRI scan was not objectively reasonable. The claims for compensation under both section 29 and section 16 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) were dismissed.