Health Insurance Commission v Handel; Health Insurance Commission v Crymble

The Health Insurance Commission (HIC) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had set aside the HIC's determinations that Mr Handel and Mr Crymble were not entitled to Medicare benefits for certain medical services. The dispute concerned the interpretation of the phrase "medical services" as defined in the *Health Insurance Act 1973* (Cth) and whether the services provided by Mr Handel and Mr Crymble, which involved the use of a "Bio-Resonance Diagnostic and Therapeutic Device," qualified as such.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the AAT had erred in law by finding that the services provided by Mr Handel and Mr Crymble constituted "medical services" within the meaning of the *Health Insurance Act*. Specifically, the court had to determine if the services, as described and performed, were of a kind that a medical practitioner would ordinarily provide, or if they were of a kind that a medical practitioner would ordinarily provide, for the purposes of diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of disease or injury in a human being.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Gleeson CJ, Sheller JA, and Stein JA, found that the AAT had erred in its interpretation of the Act. The court held that the services provided by Mr Handel and Mr Crymble, which involved the use of the Bio-Resonance device, were not services that a medical practitioner would ordinarily provide. The court reasoned that the Act contemplated services that were recognised by the medical profession and that the use of such a device, not accepted by the medical profession, did not fall within the scope of "medical services" for the purpose of Medicare benefits. The court emphasised that the services must be of a kind that a medical practitioner would ordinarily provide, and the AAT had failed to apply this test correctly.

The Court of Appeal allowed the HIC's appeals, set aside the decisions of the AAT, and remitted the matters to the AAT for redetermination in accordance with the court's reasons.