Pike and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation)

This matter concerned a claim for compensation by Ms Pike against the Australian Capital Territory, which had assumed responsibility for her workers' compensation claims. Ms Pike sought compensation for treatments including Feldenkrais, physiotherapy, and guided steroid injections, in relation to accepted work-related injuries, including a sub-periosteal haematoma to her left foot, a wrenched lower back, a thoracic spine injury, a neck injury, and exacerbation of previous back injuries. The core of the dispute revolved around whether these treatments constituted "medical treatment" or "therapeutic treatment" that was reasonable to obtain in the circumstances, and whether they were obtained "at the direction of" a legally qualified medical practitioner and in relation to the accepted injuries.

The court was required to determine the meaning of "medical treatment" and "therapeutic treatment" within the relevant legislative framework, and the criteria for establishing that such treatment was "reasonable to obtain in the circumstances." Specifically, the court had to consider whether the persistence of Ms Pike's injuries, described as chronic pain, warranted the treatments sought. Furthermore, the court needed to interpret the phrase "at the direction of" a medical practitioner and assess whether the treatments were obtained in relation to the accepted injuries, taking into account the applicable causal test for persisting employment contribution to a material degree. The court also considered the relevance of Comcare's Clinical Framework policy, noting it was not binding.

The court reasoned that for physiotherapy treatment to be considered reasonable, it must be advised, prescribed, or ordered by a legally qualified medical practitioner. In Ms Pike's case, the physiotherapy treatment was not found to be reasonable in the circumstances. Similarly, Feldenkrais treatment was not considered to be "at the direction of" a medical practitioner, as it was not advised, prescribed, or ordered by one. Regarding the guided steroid injections, the court found they were not obtained in relation to the accepted injuries. The court affirmed the decisions under review, indicating that these treatments did not meet the statutory requirements for compensation.