SRFR and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal regarding a determination that the Applicant was not entitled to compensation for the costs of hydrotherapy treatment and associated travel expenses. The Applicant’s compensable injury was the aggravation of contact dermatitis and other eczema. The Respondent had accepted liability for this injury under section 14 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the hydrotherapy treatment at the Avene Centre in France, and the associated travel expenses, constituted "reasonable treatment in the circumstances" and a "reasonable amount of compensation" under section 16 of the SRC Act. The Tribunal was required to consider both the objective medical evidence and the Applicant's subjective circumstances in determining the reasonableness of the claimed expenses.

The Tribunal considered evidence from the Applicant's general practitioner, Dr Andersen, who supported the Avene treatment, noting its past efficacy for the Applicant and the Applicant's concerns about the side effects of conventional steroid treatments, particularly in light of her history of breast cancer. However, the Tribunal was also presented with evidence from a consultant dermatologist, Dr Andrews, who opined that the Avene treatment was not reasonable in the circumstances. Dr Andrews explained that the Applicant was experiencing an allergic flare, not atopic dermatitis, and that a targeted treatment course was available in Australia. While acknowledging the Applicant's hesitations towards dermatological treatment and her research, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not provided direct evidence contradicting Dr Andrews' assessment of the risks, or lack thereof, of alternative treatments.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was persuaded by the evidence of Dr Andrews. It concluded that, after taking into account both objective and subjective considerations, it was not reasonable for the Applicant to obtain the hydrotherapy treatment at the Avene Centre in Montpellier, France, in the circumstances. Accordingly, the decision under review was affirmed.