Damian v Royal Doulton Australia Pty Ltd

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Damian v Royal Doulton Australia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 200
APPLICANT:	Susan Damian
RESPONDENT:	Royal Doulton Australia Proprietary Limited
SENIOR MEMBER:	Kerry Haddock
DATE OF DECISION:	22 April 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for costs of travel between Port Macquarie and Sydney for the applicant and her husband, in order for the applicant to undergo CT guided steroid injections to L4/5; respondent disputed liability on the grounds that the treatment was provided at a location that necessitated more travel than was reasonably necessary to obtain the treatment; section 60(2B); evidence that the treatment is available in Port Macquarie; paucity of evidence from applicant and her general practitioner to support the proposition that the applicant requires to undergo the treatment in Sydney; consideration of Nicolaides v Blacktown City Council and Price v Ausgrid; Held – applicant is entitled to choose to undergo treatment in Sydney, but undergoing the treatment in Sydney necessitates more travel than is reasonably necessary to obtain the treatment; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. There is an award for the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Susan Damian (Mrs Damian) was employed by the respondent, Royal Doulton Australia Pty Ltd, as a sales assistant.
Mrs Damian sustained injury to her left and right knees and right elbow when she fell from a ladder on 5 August 2002. She has also sustained consequential conditions of her lumbar spine, left hip, right hip, left wrist, and right wrist.
On 22 June 2023, the respondent’s insurer, AAI Limited trading as GIO (GIO), issued the applicant with a notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act).
GIO disputed the applicant’s claim for travel expenses from Port Macquarie to Sydney for medical treatment. The claim related to the applicant attending an appointment with gastroenterologist Dr Anthony Greenberg.
GIO did not consider that the applicant’s travel to Sydney was reasonably necessary, as there were qualified gastroenterologists who practised in Port Macquarie. GIO listed three such practitioners.
Pursuant to s 60(2B) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), GIO was prepared to pay travel expenses of $8.80, being 16km x $0.55. It advised the applicant that, if she wished to consult Dr Greenberg, the cost of travel above the reasonably necessary $8.80 would need to be covered by her.
On 28 August 2023, GIO issued the applicant with a further notice pursuant to s 78 of the 1998 Act.
GIO disputed the applicant’s claim for travel expenses from Sydney to Port Macquarie to undergo CT guided steroid injections to L4/5.
GIO did not consider cortisone injections to be a procedure requiring a specialist who was only available in Sydney. It was not reasonably necessary for the applicant to travel to Sydney, as there were providers in Port Macquarie that had advertised such services as corticosteroid injections, two of which it listed.
Pursuant to s 60(2B) of the 1987 Act, GIO was prepared to pay travel expenses of $8.70, being 15km x $0.58. It advised the applicant that, if she wished to continue to consult the radiologist in Sydney, the cost of travel above the reasonably necessary $8.70 would need to be covered by her.
GIO further advised that the applicant had been inadvertently paid the sum of $454.76 for flights on 8 August 2023, and it would be seeking recovery of that amount.
By letter dated 25 October 2023, the applicant’s solicitors requested that GIO review its decision dated 28 August 2023.
On 8 November 2023, GIO issued the applicant with a notice advising that it had reviewed its decision, which it maintained.
The applicant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) on
30 November 2023.
The applicant claimed that on 5 August 2002, she fell off a ladder and sustained injury to both knees and her right elbow. She had sustained consequential injuries [sic] to her lumbar spine, both hips, and both wrists.
The applicant claimed the sum of $1,279.56 for past medical treatment; and the sum of $1,190 for future medical treatment, being flights for two people from Port Macquarie to Sydney and from Sydney to Port Macquarie; taxi fares; and food.
The respondent lodged its Reply on 2 January 2024.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issue remains in dispute:
(a) whether the costs of travel claimed by the applicant, pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act, are reasonably necessary.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The matter was listed for conciliation/arbitration hearing on 9 April 2024, on the Teams platform. Mr Carney of counsel, instructed by Mr Ilievski, appeared for the applicant, who was present. The applicant’s husband attended as support person.
Mr Stiles of counsel, instructed by Ms McCoy, appeared for the respondent. Ms Kruse of GIO also attended.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:
(a) Application and attached documents, and
(b) Reply and attached documents.

Oral evidence

There was no application to call oral evidence or cross-examine any witness.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Evidence of the applicant, Susan Damian

The applicant has made several statements. Much of the evidence is not relevant to the issue now in dispute.
On 7 June 2019, the applicant stated that she had undergone surgeries to her left knee, including total knee replacement in or around August 2010, without significant benefit. The poor result culminated in “unforgiving” left knee pain and constant “locking”. Activities such as walking, standing up, or getting out of bed became “dreaded chores”.
Ever since the final knee surgery, her knee began to lock up more than ever, resulting in numerous falls or near-misses on a daily basis. Some falls were unremarkable, while others resulted in horrific pains.
On 30 December 2010, she told her general practitioner (GP) Dr Marios Nicolau, that she had slipped and fallen in the laundry at home, landing directly on her right hip and lower back. At that stage, there was no significant or permanent issue with her lower back.
In or around August 2011, she consulted Dr Nicolau in relation to very pronounced lower back pain. A bone scan revealed some issues at the L4/5 and L5/S1 levels.
On or around 17 September 2012, she had a significant fall at home, crashing down onto the tiles, directly onto the base of her spine near her right hip.
Although her left knee was in a lot of pain after her fall, she was not surprised. What surprised her was that she began to feel intense pain across her right hip and lower back. This was a “turning point”, as since then, pains in her lower back and right hip had become a permanent part of her life.
On 18 January 2013, she received a cortisone injection to her lower back. At that stage, she opposed any kind of invasive treatment to her lower back, given her poor experience with her left knee surgeries. She wished to treat her lower back conservatively for as long as possible. She continued to receive various cortisone injections to her lower back over the years.
On 18 July 2017, she underwent L4/5 spinal fusion. The surgery was not successful in reducing any of her symptoms. Her lower back pain, radiating into her right leg and calf, persisted as at the date of the statement.
Her current treatment involved using Norspan patches on her right hip and lower back and taking Panadol Osteo as necessary. She occasionally took Endone, OxyContin, or Lyrica. She took Somac to counteract the effects of narcotic pain medication. She also performed hydrotherapy in her home pool and undertook acupuncture occasionally. She no longer engaged in physiotherapy as she feared it may do further damage.
The applicant’s list of disabilities included constant pain in the lower back, radiating into the right buttock, thigh, and calf; restricted range of motion in the lower back; occasional reliance on a walking stick; aggravation of pain in the lower back after prolonged sitting, standing, and walking; inability to walk on a flat surface for more than 20 minutes; and difficulty negotiating stairs and uneven surfaces.
On 22 February 2023, the applicant made a further statement. It was addressed to her claim for domestic assistance and resurfacing of her driveway. She made similar complaints of disabilities.
The applicant made a supplementary statement dated 21 November 2023.
She had been travelling to Sydney for cortisone injections for some years. She believed the specialists in Sydney “have my best interests at heart” and had administered the injections “in the most calm and collected way possible”.
Due to the significance of her injuries, she did not believe changing specialists would be in the best interests of her recovery.
Dr David Cooke had also supported her need to travel, as the Sydney specialists knew how to administer such procedures effectively and correctly. She had built a strong relationship with clinics in Sydney, who were always working around her schedule.
She believed the travel to Sydney to undergo treatment under the care of Dr Greenberg and Dr Truong was necessary and the travel was to be paid for by the insurer.

Medical evidence

Much of the medical evidence relied upon by the applicant is irrelevant to the matters in dispute.

The Hills Medical & Dental Centre

On 14 January 2013, Dr Thomas recorded that the applicant had had a cortisone injection in her [right] hip. Her hip was much better, but her back was now prominent. She had L4/5 and L5/S1 facet joint “in bone scan Aug 2011”.
Dr Thomas noted “Cortisone inj into facet joints. Norwest Imaging – Bella Vista.”
On 25 January 2013, Dr Nicolaou recorded that the applicant had had two injections into the lumbar spine at Northside Imaging Hornsby and facet joint injections on the same day. She had short lived relief of pain only, “likely from LA – currently back pain unchanged”.
On 1 February 2013, Dr Nicolaou recorded that the applicant was seeing Dr Sullivan on Tuesday. She requested a referral to update him – “x 3 falls where L knee gave way, and hip/back problem”.
On 3 June 2013, Dr Nicolaou recorded that physiotherapy had helped the applicant’s back. She had ongoing right hip and left knee pain.
The applicant had had an ultrasound guided injection into the trochanteric bursa on
17 January 2013, and this was very helpful. She asked about a repeat injection, which she would like to have through Northside at Hornsby “– had a CT guided spinal injection through them”.
On 18 November 2013, Dr Nicolaou recorded that the applicant had had L4/5 and L5/S1 facets injected on 25 July 2013 at Connect Radiology at Hornsby.
On 13 December 2013, Dr Nicolaou recorded a call from the applicant’s husband. “‘Reasonable and Necessary’: needed on reports to approve procedures apparently. Either way the request for u/s guided inj was knocked back”, despite the opinions of Dr Nicolaou, the applicant and her husband “being very clear and obvious” that the applicant needed the injection, and why it was needed.
Dr Nicolaou advised that PRP could do the procedure, as the applicant qualified for it under Medicare.
On 11 June 2014, Dr Nicolaou recorded that the applicant requested a referral for further cortisone injections into her low back and right hip. He noted “referrals to PRP.”
On 2 July 2014, Dr Nicolaou recorded that the applicant had had cortisone injections.
On 9 July 2014, Dr Nicolaou recorded a provisional diagnosis of bursitis [in the right shoulder], “may need cortisone injection…Probably best to have it at PRP Castle Hill as she had had several cortisone injections here with good results”. The applicant’s right hip and back were better post cortisone injection at PRP.
On 3 June 2015, Dr Enrique Avedillo recorded that the applicant had bursitis. She wanted a steroid injection. She had had a steroid injection in her back with good response.
On 16 November 2015, Dr Annie Xavier recorded that the applicant had increasing pain in the lower back. Her last cortisone injection was in February 2015. She requested a referral to PRP for CT guided injection.
Dr Xavier referred the applicant to PRP for CT guided injection of the right L4/5 and L5/S1 facet joints.
On 26 April 2016, Dr Thomas recorded “CT guided scan at PRP.”
On 6 June 2016, Dr Thomas recorded that the applicant had right sided CT guided steroid injection at PRP on 11 May. Her left side was “also very bad” and “CT guided to be done left facet joint Dr North”.
On 28 November 2016, Dr Thomas recorded a history of CT guided injection on the right and left sides.
On 12 January 2017, Dr Ko Ko Swe recorded that the applicant had right sciatica. She was awaiting surgery. The plan was for cortisone injection.
On 15 January 2018, Dr Thomas recorded a history of right L5/S1 injection “– seen
Dr Biggs”.
On 3 May 2018, Dr Thomas recorded “L3 injection to be done. Having sacroiliac joint done by Dr Biggs.”
On 5 June 2018, Dr Thomas recorded “Had cortisone.”
On 13 February 2019, Dr Thomas recorded a history of CT guided steroid injection “right L5/S1.”
On 2 April 2019, Dr Thomas recorded that the applicant had just had the spinal injections in several spots. “Dr Biggs – did not think it will get better.”

Lighthouse Beach Medical Centre

On 30 July 2018, Dr Jenny Beange recorded that the applicant was due for a cortisone injection – “last one May 2018”.
On 12 September 2018, Dr Beange recorded an acute exacerbation of lower back pain. “Had last cortisone 9/8 Dr Thomas ref direct to radiology”.
On 12 July 2019, Dr John Fone recorded “Imaging request printed: CT guided steroid injections. Right side. L4/L5/S1. (Recurrent injections after spinal fusion, as previously performed)”, and “(Spinal fusion perineural inj every 6 months).”
On 4 November 2019, Dr Beange recorded a recent recurrence of back pain. The applicant required left total hip replacement and right total knee replacement. Her pain had responded in the past to steroid infiltration. She was requesting a further referral.
On 20 April 2020, Dr Beange recorded that the knee replacement had been cancelled. The applicant had low back pain again. “Needs cortisone again.”
On 30 November 2020, Dr Beange recorded an imaging request for L4/L5/S1 right sided CT guided steroid injection.
On 4 April 2023, Dr Cooke responded to a series of questions from GIO. As it is not possible to understand his report without reference to the questions, I have reproduced the questions and Dr Cooke’s answers.
(a) Question: Can you please describe the characteristics of Ms Damian’s pain and the mechanism of action of steroid injections for her L4/5, S1 complaints?
Answer: Radicular pain. Responds to this treatment.
(b) Question: Ms Damian previously had this procedure completed on the 19^th of January 2023. Can you please elaborate on the expected functional outcomes from CT guided steroid injection regarding Ms Damian’s completion of activities of daily living, self-care tasks, and participation in her community?
Answer: Needs continuing repeated injections.
(c) Question: What is the duration of efficacy for CT guided steroid injections for Ms Damian and at what frequency is this procedure expected to occur?
Answer: Duration varies – approximately 2-3 months.
(d) Question: Do CT guided steroid injections continue to provide benefit? If so, can you please elaborate.
Answer: Yes.
(e) Question: Does current peer reviewed evidence-based literature support the use of CT guided steroid injections for patients with pain originating from L4/5, S1? If so, can you please reference?
Answer: Yes – any appropriate specialist agrees.
(f) Question: You have referred Ms Damian on to a medical practitioner that is located in Sydney. Would the services and treatment from a radiologist located in Port Macquarie or surrounding areas also be acceptable? If not, can you please elaborate?
Answer: Sydney specialist knows the patient well.
On 18 October 2023, Dr David Cooke reported to the applicant’s solicitors.
Dr Cooke advised that “the Sydney specialist” was the only one that effectively did the cortisone injections the applicant required to help her chronic spinal condition, and it was considered that the treatment was reasonable and necessary.
Whilst there were providers in Port Macquarie, the waiting times for these specialists were “unacceptable as these injections need to continue”.

Highfields Imaging

Highfields Imaging is located in Port Macquarie.
There are reports to Dr Cooke dated 22 October 2021 and 25 October 2021 from Dr Manish Chug.
The first report related to CT guided right L5/S1 facet joint injection; and the second to right L4/5 facet joint injection. Each concluded that “No immediate complication was encountered.”

Dr Murray Hyde-Page – orthopaedic surgeon

Dr Hyde-Page was qualified by the applicant’s solicitors and reported on 2 May 2022.
Much of the report is not relevant to the issues in dispute.
However, the respondent drew attention to Dr Hyde-Page’s opinion that facet joint CT scan guided injections are an interventional procedure but could be done by an interventional radiologist under imaging control. There was no necessity for the applicant to go to hospital or have any anaesthetic, other than possible local anaesthetic.

SUBMISSIONS

Counsel’s submissions have been recorded. I will therefore provide a summary of the main points.

Applicant

The applicant referred to her evidence about the need for travel, aligned with which was the need for travel for her carer. She referred to her restrictions. Given the level of her incapacity, she submitted it would be foolish for her to attempt to travel to Sydney by herself.
The applicant largely relied on the evidence of Dr Cooke.
The applicant submitted that, in an ideal world, the respondent’s objections would be fair and reasonable. In the real world, to continue to function, she had to have injections in Sydney.
In re-opening her submissions, the applicant submitted that she had had injections in Port Macquarie. It was not the case that the Port Macquarie clinics had not been tried. They were, and Dr Cooke considered treatment in Sydney to be more appropriate.
The applicant submitted that Dr Hyde-Page’s opinion is not relevant. There was no suggestion that she was going to hospital to have the injections.

Respondent

The respondent submitted that Dr Hyde-Page’s evidence supported the contention that the injections could be done in Port Macquarie.
The respondent submitted that, despite Dr Cooke suggesting that the waiting times in Port Macquarie were unacceptable, there was no evidence as to what they were, or attempts by the applicant to see practitioners in Port Macquarie. There was no evidence from Dr Cooke as to whether there was an attempt to refer the applicant to them, and if not, why not?
The respondent submitted there was no evidence to suggest that providers in Port Macquarie were not equally as professional and effective as those in Sydney. There was no suggestion that the applicant had canvassed treatment in the Newcastle area, which would open up more providers, closer to Port Macquarie than Sydney.
The respondent referred to the decisions in Nicolaides v Blacktown City Council[1] and Price v Ausgrid.[2]
[1] [2023] NSWPIC 409 (Nicolaides).
[2] [2021] NSWPIC 350 (Price).

The respondent submitted that I would find it was the applicant’s choice to come to Sydney for treatment. It was available closer, and travelling to Sydney involved more travel than was reasonably necessary.
In reply to the applicant’s further submissions, the respondent withdrew any suggestion that the applicant had not attended for treatment in Port Macquarie. It submitted that there was still no evidence from either the applicant or Dr Cooke as to why she had to come to Sydney for the treatment or could not have it in Port Macquarie.
The respondent did not suggest that the treatment needed to be done in a hospital. It had referred to Dr Hyde-Page’s evidence to show that it could be done in any area, as long as the radiologist was appropriately qualified.

SUMMARY

Section 60 of the 1987 Act provides:

“60 Compensation for cost of medical or hospital treatment and rehabilitation etc

(1) If, as a result of an injury received by a worker, it is reasonably necessary that--
(a) any medical or related treatment (other than domestic assistance) be given, or
(b) any hospital treatment be given, or
(c) any ambulance service be provided, or
(d) any workplace rehabilitation service be provided,
the worker's employer is liable to pay, in addition to any other compensation under this Act, the cost of that treatment or service and the related travel expenses specified in subsection (2).
Note: Compensation for domestic assistance is provided for by section 60AA.
(2) If it is necessary for a worker to travel in order to receive any such treatment or service (except any treatment or service excluded from this subsection by the regulations), the related travel expenses the employer is liable to pay are--
(a) the cost to the worker of any fares, travelling expenses and maintenance necessarily and reasonably incurred by the worker in obtaining the treatment or being provided with the service, and
(b) if the worker is not reasonably able to travel unescorted--the amount of the fares, travelling expenses and maintenance necessarily and reasonably incurred by an escort provided to enable the worker to be given the treatment or provided with the service.
(2A) The worker's employer is not liable under this section to pay the cost of any treatment or service (or related travel expenses) if--
(a) the treatment or service is given or provided without the prior approval of the insurer (not including treatment provided within 48 hours of the injury happening and not including treatment or service that is exempt under the Workers Compensation Guidelines from the requirement for prior insurer approval), or
(b) the treatment or service is given or provided by a person who is not appropriately qualified to give or provide the treatment or service, or
(c) the treatment or service is not given or provided in accordance with any conditions imposed by the Workers Compensation Guidelines on the giving or providing of the treatment or service, or
(d) the treatment is given or provided by a health practitioner whose registration as a health practitioner under any relevant law is limited or subject to any condition imposed as a result of a disciplinary process, or who is suspended or disqualified from practice.
(2B) The worker's employer is not liable under this section to pay travel expenses related to any treatment or service if the treatment or service is given or provided at a location that necessitates more travel than is reasonably necessary to obtain the treatment or service.
(2C) The Workers Compensation Guidelines may make provision for or with respect to the following--
(a) establishing rules to be applied in determining whether it is reasonably necessary for a treatment or service to be given or provided,
(b) limiting the kinds of treatment and service (and related travel expenses) that an employer is liable to pay the cost of under this section,
(c) limiting the amount for which an employer is liable to pay under this section for any particular treatment or service,
(d) establishing standard treatment plans for the treatment of particular injuries or classes of injury,
(e) specifying the qualifications or experience that a person requires to be
‘appropriately qualified’ for the purposes of this section to give or provide a treatment or service to an injured worker (including by providing that a person is not appropriately qualified unless approved or accredited by the Authority).
(3) Payments under this section are to be made as the costs are incurred, but only if properly verified.
(4) The fact that a worker is a contributor to a medical, hospital or other benefit fund, and is therefore entitled to any treatment or service either at some special rate or free or entitled to a refund, does not affect the liability of an employer under this section.
(5) The jurisdiction of the Commission with respect to a dispute about compensation payable under this section extends to a dispute concerning any proposed treatment or service and the compensation that will be payable under this section in respect of any such proposed treatment or service. Any such dispute may be referred by the President for assessment by a medical assessor under Part 7 (Medical assessment) of Chapter 7 of the 1998 Act.”

The applicant of course bears the onus of establishing that it is reasonably necessary that she travel from Port Macquarie to Sydney to undergo CT guided steroid injections; and that she is not reasonably able to travel unescorted, so the respondent would be liable not only for her travel expenses, but those of her husband to accompany her.
The applicant’s own evidence regarding the necessity to travel to Sydney is that the doctors have her best interests at heart; administered the injections in a calm and collected way; and she had built a strong relationship with Sydney clinics, which worked around her schedule. She did not believe changing specialists would be in the best interests of her recovery.
Firstly, one would assume that any ethical medical practitioner would have the best interests of their patients at heart.
Secondly, there is no evidence that the injections in Port Macquarie (of which there is evidence of only two) were not administered in a “calm and collected” way, such as to give the applicant cause for concern. Neither she nor Dr Cooke has given this evidence.
The fact that the applicant obviously prefers to undergo the treatment in Sydney also means that it is unlikely that any practitioner in Port Macquarie has had the opportunity to build a relationship with her.
There is in evidence a referral for right L4/5 and L5/S1 facet joint CT guided steroid injection from Dr Shreyas Prabhala to Mid North Coast Diagnostic Imaging, dated 14 January 2022. There is no evidence that the applicant underwent the treatment, and, if so, the outcome of the treatment.
Thirdly, there is no evidence of the applicant’s “schedule” around which there is a necessity to work. Her evidence is that she is severely restricted in all her activities of daily living. She has not given evidence of any activity with which undergoing medical treatment in Port Macquarie would interfere. It would appear more likely that her schedule would be disrupted by travelling to Sydney for treatment.
Dr Cooke’s evidence is cursory at best. He has opined that the Sydney specialist knew the applicant well; and was the only one that effectively did the cortisone injections, without providing any basis for the latter opinion. He has also opined that waiting times in Port Macquarie were unacceptable, as the injections needed to continue. He did not initially advance that as a reason for the necessity for the applicant to travel to Sydney for the treatment.
Dr Cooke has given no evidence of the duration of the waiting times in Port Macquarie, and the applicant herself has not cited this as a reason why she requires to undergo the treatment in Sydney (unless reference to her “schedule” is an oblique reference to this matter).
There is no medical evidence that supports the assertion that the applicant is unable to travel unaccompanied. Given her evidence about the extent of her disabilities, it is somewhat surprising in any event that she would prefer the inconvenience of travelling to Sydney over undertaking treatment in Port Macquarie.
In Nicolaides, the applicant continued to consult his general practitioner in Blacktown, although he had moved to Berkeley Vale. This involved a round trip of 182km, for which he claimed the cost of travel by car.
Member Batchelor said:
“If the applicant wishes to continue to consult his Blacktown general practitioner, it is not unreasonable that he travel by public transport. In terms of s 60(2B) of the 1987 Act, the travel expenses related to treatment or service given or provided in Blacktown necessitates more travel than is reasonably necessary to obtain the treatment or service.”
In Price, the applicant claimed the costs of travel from the Central Coast, or a practice in Wollstonecraft, to Parramatta, to consult with practitioners in the practice of Workers Doctors.
Member Scarcella said:
“I acknowledge that Mr Price has been treated by a variety of treatment providers in varying specialty areas in the medical practice known as Workers Doctors. Mr Price has elected to rely on this multidisciplinary medical practice in securing his treatment. I understand that it makes sense to do so. I also understand that it was open to Mr Price to utilise the expertise of that medical practice and the team who has treated him over the years. However, it was Mr Price’s choice to do so. Despite it being an understandable choice and, as Mr Price submitted, his right to do so, that does not mean Ausgrid should pay the cost of such travel. Section 60(2B) of the 1987 Act clearly provides that the worker's employer is not liable to pay travel expenses related to any treatment or service, if the treatment or service is given or provided at a location that necessitates more travel than is reasonably necessary to obtain the treatment or service. The driving distance between Mr Price’s home, Parramatta and return is about 162 km. The driving distance between Mr Price’s home, Wollstonecraft and return is about 106 km. I find that such travel necessitates more travel than is reasonably necessary to obtain the treatment or service.”
If the applicant wishes to continue to undergo treatment in Sydney, that is her choice, and her right. The respondent should not, however, be required to meet the costs of that personal choice, in the absence of persuasive evidence that it is necessary for Mrs Damian to undergo the treatment in Sydney.
I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the applicant has established the necessity for her to travel to Sydney to undergo medical treatment. It is probably therefore unnecessary that I determine whether it is necessary for her husband to accompany her to Sydney. However, as I have noted, there is no medical evidence that directly supports that claim.
I determine that the travel expenses related to treatment or service given or provided in Sydney, that is CT guided steroid injections to L4/5, necessitates more travel than is reasonably necessary to obtain the treatment or service.
The order is set out in the Certificate of Determination.

[2024] NSWPIC 200

22 April 2024