Nolan and Comcare

[2009] AATA 680

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 680

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)         No T 2007/4

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)          &  2008/1015
Re		LORRAINE MARGARET NOLAN

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms A F Cunningham (Senior Member)

Date9 September 2009

PlaceHobart

Decision The decisions under review are affirmed.

[Sgd Ms A F Cunningham]

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

WORKERS'  COMPENSATION  - liability accepted for adjustment reaction with anxious mood - claim for expenses associated with massage and chiropractic treatment - whether reasonable treatment, treatment only provided transient and temporary pain relief - no evidence of long-term benefit - graded exercise program recommended as appropriate medical treatment - decisions under review affirmed

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, ss 4(1), 5A, 14, 16

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007, s 42

Mikic v Comcare [2002] AATA 125

Lovrinovic and Comcare [1998] AATA 1038

Lonsdale and Comcare [2004] AATA 555

REASONS FOR DECISION

9 September 2009   Ms A F Cunningham (Senior Member)   

1.      The applicant, Lorraine Nolan, commenced employment with the Commonwealth Government at Centrelink's National Pay Office for Infopay in Burnie in around 2001.  After developing anxiety symptoms in 2003 she made a claim for compensation for acute anxiety, stress.  On 4 December 2003, Comcare accepted liability for adjustment reaction with anxious mood. 

2.      Mrs Nolan subsequently underwent treatment for her condition and from 4 December 2003 until 3 November 2005, Comcare accepted and paid for associated expenses which included doctors' attendances, medication, massage, chiropractic and naturopathic intervention.  On 1 May 2006, Comcare made a determination refusing funding for attendances of Dr Ghali, Mr Hall, and for emu oil, anti-snore medication and ultra glucosamine as from November 2005.  Mrs Nolan sought a review of the decision which was affirmed on 29 November 2006.  On 2 June 2006, Comcare determined that expenses related to massage treatment were not payable from 18 May 2006.  This decision was subsequently affirmed on 20 November 2006.  On 24 November 2006 a determination was issued refusing funding for chiropractic treatment which decision was affirmed on 19 October 2007.  This decision was subsequently affirmed by the respondent on 16 February 2008. 

3.      Mrs Nolan has lodged two applications for review with the Tribunal.  The first on 6 January 2007 with respect to the decision to cease payment of massage treatment and the second on 6 March 2008 in relation to the decision of 16 February 2008 which affirmed a decision to cease payment of chiropractic treatment.  In the applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions, reference is made to Comcare's determination refusing funding for attendances on Dr Ghali, Mr Hall and emu oil, ultra glucosamine and anti-snore medication. 

4. In the Statement it is contended that these expenses for medical treatment obtained by the applicant in relation to the claimed injury were reasonable for the applicant to obtain in the circumstances and as such, are payable pursuant to section 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act