Hawker and Comcare (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the dispute between Mr. Hawker and Comcare concerning the reasonableness of ongoing massage therapy as medical treatment. Mr. Hawker sought to have Comcare's decision to cease funding his massage therapy set aside.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the ongoing massage therapy provided to Mr. Hawker was reasonable for him to obtain, within the meaning of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). This involved assessing the necessity and appropriateness of the treatment in light of Mr. Hawker's accepted work-related injury.

The Tribunal found that while initial massage therapy may have been appropriate, the evidence did not support the ongoing necessity of such treatment for Mr. Hawker's condition. It applied the principle that medical treatment must be reasonable and necessary for the accepted injury, and that the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate this ongoing need. The Tribunal noted that the treating medical practitioners had not consistently recommended ongoing massage therapy, and that alternative treatments or a review of the necessity of the massage therapy were not adequately explored.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside Comcare's decision and substituted a new decision that the ongoing massage therapy was not reasonable treatment for Mr. Hawker to obtain.