Heales and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against a decision by Comcare regarding their entitlement to compensation for massage therapy. The dispute centred on whether the massage therapy constituted reasonable medical treatment for the applicant's accepted work-related knee injuries, which originated from an incident on 31 October 1988. The relevant legislation governing the claim was the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant's massage therapy was reasonable medical treatment for her accepted conditions. This involved assessing the relationship between the massage therapy, which treated widespread pain in the applicant's upper body, and her accepted knee injuries. A secondary, but significant, legal question addressed the Tribunal's power to make findings that may differ from expert medical opinions, particularly in light of cases such as *Rodriguez v Telstra Corporation Ltd* and *Comcare v Wuth*.

The Tribunal clarified that while expert medical opinions are highly persuasive, they are not determinative. Drawing on *Comcare v Wiggins*, the Tribunal held that it is entitled to form its own views, even if they are inconsistent with medical opinions, provided there is sufficient probative evidence to support those views. The Tribunal distinguished *Comcare v Wuth*, noting that in that case, the specific assessment guidelines (AMA5) required clinical judgment by physicians, limiting the Tribunal's evaluative role. In the present case, the Tribunal found no credible medical evidence supporting the applicant's theory that the massage therapy for her upper body pain was treatment for her accepted knee conditions. The applicant's GP's report was based on a mistaken understanding of the treatment's purpose.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the massage therapy did not relate to the applicant's accepted conditions. Accordingly, the decision under review, which denied compensation for the massage therapy, was affirmed.