Sincock and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mrs Sincock against a decision by Comcare to deny ongoing entitlement to physiotherapy and myotherapy treatment in relation to an accepted injury. The dispute centred on whether the requested treatments were reasonable and necessary for the accepted injury, or if they were instead related to a pre-existing degenerative condition. The case was heard by D. J. Morris SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the physiotherapy and myotherapy treatments sought by Mrs Sincock were in relation to her accepted injury, and whether such treatments were reasonable in the circumstances, as required by section 16 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence regarding the nature of Mrs Sincock's current symptoms, the cause of those symptoms, and the efficacy of the proposed treatments in addressing the accepted injury.

The Tribunal considered evidence from various medical professionals, including reports from Dr King, Mr Kelman, Dr O’Donnell, Dr Sillcock, Mr Xenos, and Mr Kewish. It was noted that while initial recommendations for myotherapy were considered reasonable following the accident, Mrs Sincock herself had ceased this treatment, believing it was not substantially different from physiotherapy and no longer of benefit. The Tribunal found the reasoning in *Re Popovic and Comcare* persuasive, concluding that passive physiotherapy treatment that offered limited or no long-term benefit, and potentially no short-term benefit, was not reasonable. Similarly, the Tribunal accepted Mrs Sincock's concession that myotherapy was no longer of benefit. Regarding physiotherapy, the Tribunal noted that medical opinions, including that of Mr Kelman, suggested that the applicant's spinal problems were primarily caused by ageing and degenerative changes, rather than the 1996 motor vehicle accident. While Mr Kewish's physiotherapy regimen was considered reasonable for a person with degenerative cervical spine issues, it was viewed as treating spondylosis, not the injury sustained 20 years prior.

The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision, finding that the myotherapy treatment was no longer reasonable treatment within the bounds of section 16 of the *SRC Act*, as there was no evidence of continuing beneficial effects. The Tribunal also found a lack of clarity regarding the ongoing necessity of physiotherapy in relation to the accepted injury, given the evidence pointing towards degenerative changes as the primary cause of current symptoms.