Stitt and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant, Ms Stitt, against a decision by Comcare that it was not liable to pay compensation for medical treatment under section 16 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The Applicant suffered from an accepted workers' compensation claim for aggravation of thoracic outlet syndrome, with the date of injury being 29 March 1995. Comcare had previously accepted liability for various treatments between 1995 and 2015. The dispute centred on the reasonableness of physiotherapy treatment proposed in treatment plans for 2017 and 2018, following an earlier Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) decision that had affirmed liability for two physiotherapy sessions per week between February and December 2016.

The core legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the physiotherapy treatment proposed in the 2017 and 2018 treatment plans constituted "reasonable treatment" for the Applicant's accepted injury under section 16 of the *SRC Act*. This required the Tribunal to assess the necessity and efficacy of the proposed physiotherapy in managing the Applicant's ongoing pain and functional limitations, particularly in light of her extensive history of physiotherapy and other pain management interventions.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Applicant's evidence indicated that physiotherapy provided some pain relief and helped maintain her functional capacity, it did not demonstrate that the specific treatment proposed in the 2017 and 2018 plans was reasonable in the circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had undergone a significant number of physiotherapy sessions over many years and had also explored other pain management strategies, including multidisciplinary pain management programs and consultations with various specialists, without sustained significant benefit. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not establish that the proposed physiotherapy was likely to achieve the functional goals outlined in the treatment plans or that it represented a reasonable course of treatment given the Applicant's overall clinical picture and treatment history.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review, finding that the treatment set out in the 2017 and 2018 plans was not reasonable treatment in the circumstances.