Howes v Comcare

In the case of Howes v Comcare, the applicant sought reimbursement for the cost of breast reduction surgery under section 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The applicant, who had been employed by the Australian Taxation Office, claimed that her compensable injury, which included intervertebral disc disorder and shoulder sprain, was exacerbated by the weight of her breasts. She underwent breast reduction surgery in 2009 and sought reimbursement from Comcare, which was refused. The matter was reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which affirmed Comcare's decision. The applicant appealed the AAT's decision to the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the AAT misconstrued section 16 of the SRC Act in holding that the medical treatment (breast reduction surgery) was not obtained "in relation to" the compensable injury, and whether the AAT's decision or fact-finding was unreasonable in the legal sense. Additionally, the applicant argued that the AAT misapplied the principle from Jones v Dunkel by preferring the evidence of Dr Maxwell over the applicant's medical advisors.

The Federal Court found no merit in the applicant's arguments. Regarding the alleged inconsistency in addressing Dr Coyle's evidence, the Court held that the AAT correctly made its own findings of fact based on all the evidence before it, and there was no inconsistency. The Court also found that the AAT did not err in preferring Dr Maxwell's evidence over that of the applicant's medical advisors. The Court held that the AAT's analysis and findings were reasonable, and there was no basis for concluding that the AAT's decision or fact-finding was unreasonable in the legal sense.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to pay Comcare's costs. The appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay Comcare's costs, as agreed or assessed.