Oliver and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Oliver against a decision by Comcare to curtail her entitlement to ongoing physiotherapy treatment for a bilateral cervicobrachial pain disorder, which had developed on a background of an occupational overuse injury. The dispute centred on whether the physiotherapy treatment was reasonable to obtain under section 16 of the relevant legislation, given that the treatment was passive, did not improve the underlying condition, and Ms Oliver had become dependent on it for pain relief and to maintain a reasonable quality of life. The case was heard by Deputy Gary Humphries P.

The legal issues before the court were whether the physiotherapy treatment was "in relation to" Ms Oliver's accepted condition, and whether it was "reasonable to obtain" in the circumstances. Specifically, the court had to consider the weight to be given to medical evidence suggesting that while passive physiotherapy might not cure the underlying condition, it could provide relief and maintain a reasonable quality of life for certain patients with chronic pain. The court also had to determine the relevance of Ms Oliver's arguments regarding the accuracy of Comcare's accounting records for past treatments, the applicability of treatment frameworks to permanent and incurable conditions, and the relationship between entitlements for permanent impairment under sections 24 and 27 and ongoing treatment under section 16.

The court reasoned that while Ms Oliver's condition was permanent and incurable, and she relied on physiotherapy for relief, the entitlement under section 16 required the treatment to be reasonable to obtain. The court noted that the treatment had not led to any consistent progressive improvement or empowered Ms Oliver towards self-management, and she had become habituated to the treatment. While acknowledging the exceptional nature of Ms Oliver's response to treatment, as described by her treating physician, the court found that the passive nature of the physiotherapy and its lack of long-term benefit meant it was not reasonable to continue indefinitely under section 16. The court also determined that eligibility for permanent impairment compensation did not automatically confer an ongoing entitlement to all treatments under section 16.

The court ordered that physiotherapy sessions already paid for by Comcare between 9 June 2014 and 3 January 2015 would be treated as compensable payments. However, it set aside the decision to allow ongoing physiotherapy treatment beyond that period, substituting it with a decision that such ongoing treatment was not reasonable to obtain under section 16.