Mitchell and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against a decision by Comcare. The dispute centred on whether the Applicant continued to suffer from an injury accepted as compensable, and whether certain treatments, specifically chiropractic and massage therapy, were reasonable and necessary for that injury. The decision was made by Senior Member R Cameron of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the Applicant still suffered from the previously accepted injury. Secondly, whether the chiropractic and massage treatments sought by the Applicant were reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

The Tribunal's reasoning involved a critical assessment of the Applicant's evidence, which it found to be unreliable in certain aspects, particularly regarding the circumstances of the motor vehicle accident and the immediate aftermath. The Tribunal noted the Applicant's failure to report the accident to the police, despite an obligation to do so in Victoria when an injury occurs, and her inability to recall key details of the incident. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant, despite representing herself and receiving considerable guidance, frequently diverted from presenting relevant evidence to focus on Comcare's conduct. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the Applicant had not established that she continued to suffer from the accepted injury, nor that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding against the Applicant on the second and third issues.