Sommerville and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Sommerville against a decision by Comcare regarding her entitlement to physiotherapy and hydrotherapy treatment for an accepted back injury. The dispute centred on whether the treatment obtained by Ms Sommerville after 1 October 2014 was reasonable. The decision was made by Deputy President K Bean of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether physiotherapy and hydrotherapy treatment obtained by Ms Sommerville after 1 October 2014 was reasonable, within the meaning of the relevant legislation, for her accepted back injury. This involved considering the purpose and benefit of such treatment, particularly in circumstances where it might only provide short-term alleviation of symptoms rather than a cure.

The Tribunal considered evidence from Ms Sommerville and a physiotherapist's report, which indicated that physiotherapy had been beneficial in managing exacerbations of her chronic low back pain. While acknowledging that much of the evidence suggested further physiotherapy might not yield long-term benefits, the Tribunal applied the principle that treatment can be considered "therapeutic" if its purpose is to alleviate pain, even if it does not cure the underlying injury. This interpretation aligns with the definition of "therapeutic treatment" in the relevant Act, which includes treatment for the purpose of alleviating an injury, and is consistent with the beneficial intent of the legislation.

The Tribunal varied the decision under review. It determined that, from 1 October 2014 to the date of the decision, it was reasonable for Ms Sommerville to obtain physiotherapy treatment, excluding manipulative physiotherapy, and to undertake up to two sessions per week of supervised hydrotherapy.