Steins and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Steins for a recliner chair under section 39 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act). Comcare denied the application, a decision that was affirmed upon reconsideration. Ms Steins sought a review of Comcare's decision. The accepted conditions for which Ms Steins received compensation included chronic migraines, neck strain, major depressive disorder, and sleep apnoea, stemming from a motor vehicle accident in 1992.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Comcare, as the relevant authority, was liable to provide a recliner chair to Ms Steins under section 39 of the SRC Act. This involved determining whether Ms Steins met the preconditions for compensation under that section, specifically whether she was undertaking, had completed, or had been assessed as incapable of undertaking a rehabilitation program. Additionally, the court had to consider whether a recliner chair constituted an "aid or appliance" for the purposes of section 39 and whether it was reasonably required by Ms Steins given her compensable conditions.

The court reasoned that section 39 of the SRC Act provides for the payment of compensation for aids or appliances reasonably required by an employee, provided certain conditions are met. These conditions include the employee suffering an injury resulting in an impairment and being undertaking, having completed, or being assessed as incapable of undertaking a rehabilitation program. The court noted that section 36 of the SRC Act outlines the process for assessing an employee's capability of undertaking a rehabilitation program. The court considered the medical evidence, including reports from Dr Seneviratne, which indicated that Ms Steins had chronic daily headaches and a chronic pain condition, and that she was not fit for work and incapable of undertaking rehabilitation. However, Dr Seneviratne had expressed doubt as to whether a recliner chair would provide significant benefit and therefore was not reasonably required.

The court set aside the decision under review, indicating that Comcare's determination was not to be affirmed.