Huynh and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Huynh against a decision by Comcare to deny ongoing liability for massage therapy treatment. Mr Huynh had an accepted claim for a psychological injury, specifically stress and anxiety, which had been diagnosed by various medical practitioners as an adjustment disorder with anxiety. The central dispute revolved around whether the ongoing massage therapy was reasonable treatment for his accepted condition, particularly in light of its cost and duration.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the massage therapy treatment was reasonable in the circumstances, considering the nature and origins of Mr Huynh's muscle tension and the overall clinical framework. This involved assessing the weight of expert medical opinions regarding the diagnosis of Mr Huynh's condition, the causal link between his employment and his symptoms, and the efficacy and appropriateness of massage therapy as a treatment modality. The Tribunal also had to consider Comcare's arguments that the treatment was of indeterminate duration, not promoting self-management, and not recommended under clinical guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the expert opinion regarding Mr Huynh's condition was more nuanced than Comcare's interpretation. While acknowledging Comcare's concerns about the cost and objective verifiability of the benefits of massage therapy, the Tribunal noted a unanimous expert consensus on the causal link between Mr Huynh's mental health condition and his workplace experiences. The Tribunal considered that the duration of adjustment disorders could be chronic, as indicated by some expert opinions, and that the specific diagnosis of Mr Huynh's condition was subject to variation among specialists.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside Comcare's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The Tribunal found that, as at the date of the decision under review, massage therapy was reasonable treatment in respect of Mr Huynh's injury. However, due to the absence of evidence from treating professionals regarding his current specific therapeutic needs, a fresh evidence-based decision was required.