Lockwood and Telstra Corporation Limited (Compensation)

The applicant, Raymond Lockwood, sought a review of a decision by Telstra Corporation Limited that rejected his claim for compensation for medical expenses. The dispute centred on whether the cost of a medical report obtained by the applicant constituted "medical treatment" for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act). The matter was heard by P Britten-Jones SM in the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the definition of "medical treatment" under section 16 of the SRC Act and whether the report obtained from Mr Frayne, an assessor of permanent impairment, fell within this definition. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the purpose for which the report was commissioned and provided, and whether that purpose aligned with the provision of medical treatment to the applicant.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant argued an additional purpose of the consultation was to obtain treatment, the evidence did not support this. The report was commissioned by the applicant's lawyers in the context of a hearing loss compensation claim, and the assessor's own report indicated it was for a "permanent impairment assessment" and that his role was to provide a report to the lawyers. The Tribunal referred to the decision in *Comcare v Nikki O’Brien* (1997) 49 ALD 293, which held that obtaining a medical report for medico-legal purposes does not constitute "medical treatment" under the SRC Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the applicant's claim for compensation for the medical report was rejected.