Reece and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Reece, against a decision by Comcare regarding the provision of footwear under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act). The dispute centred on whether certain cushioned thongs constituted "medical treatment" for the purposes of the Act, particularly in light of previously accepted footwear. The decision was made by Mr. A. Maryniak QC, Member.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the cushioned thongs claimed by the applicant fell within the definition of "medical treatment" as defined in section 4(1) of the SRC Act. This required consideration of whether the thongs qualified as an "other similar aid or appliance" or a "curative apparatus," and whether they were obtained "in relation to" the accepted injury.

The Tribunal acknowledged the principle that worker's compensation legislation should be construed liberally. However, it found that the evidence did not support the thongs being considered medical treatment. Unlike the accepted Brooks Dyad Walker shoes, which housed prescribed orthotics and were found to be medical treatment, the thongs were not inextricably linked to these orthotics. The treating podiatrist's evidence indicated the thongs were intended to prevent a separate risk of injury from walking barefoot, rather than alleviating symptoms of the accepted low back injury. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the applicant could wear the accepted shoes around the house. Consequently, the Tribunal varied the previous decision to confirm Comcare's liability for the Brooks Dyad Walker shoes but upheld the determination that Comcare was not liable to compensate the applicant for the Orthaheel (Ease) thongs.