Huber and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Huber for review of a decision by Comcare, which affirmed IP Australia's determination that Ms Huber undertake a rehabilitation program. Ms Huber had suffered several compensable injuries, including de Quervain's tenosynovitis, lateral epicondylitis, a wrist ganglion, and an aggravation of pre-existing Bipolar Disorder Type 2. The dispute centred on the nature and scope of the rehabilitation program to be undertaken by Ms Huber, with Ms Huber preferring a program that included tertiary legal studies (a Juris Doctor degree), while Comcare's devised program focused on job seeking and medical treatment.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Comcare's decision to affirm IP Australia's determination, requiring Ms Huber to undertake a rehabilitation program focused on job seeking and medical treatment and excluding tertiary study, was appropriate. This involved considering the legislative framework governing rehabilitation programs under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth), specifically the factors mandated by section 37(3) of the Act, which include written assessments, potential reduction in future compensation liability, program costs, improved employment opportunities, psychological effects of not providing a program, the employee's attitude, and the merits of alternative programs.

The Tribunal reasoned that the purpose of a rehabilitation program is to restore an injured employee to their fullest physical, psychological, social, and vocational capabilities, typically by returning them to their pre-existing duties or suitable alternative employment. While acknowledging Ms Huber's desire to pursue a Juris Doctor degree, the Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including opinions from Dr Cheesman, Dr Sheehan, and Dr Cabouret, supported a program focused on returning Ms Huber to work, either in a similar role with IP Australia or a new role with a different employer. Although Dr Cabouret indicated that not undertaking the Juris Doctor might have a deleterious psychological effect, he also noted that Ms Huber would philosophically accept it if she had done her best. The Tribunal concluded that the medical opinions did not directly address Ms Huber's capacity to undertake a Juris Doctor, and while there was a risk of relapse of her bipolar disorder, this risk appeared low and contained with appropriate treatment.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decision. It found it appropriate that Ms Huber be required to undertake the rehabilitation program as devised by Comcare, which focused on job seeking and medical treatment, and that the tertiary course of studies preferred by Ms Huber should be excluded from the program.