Thoreau and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, Thoreau, for compensation from Comcare for ongoing medical treatment. The Applicant had previously been accepted as suffering from bilateral epicondylitis, for which she had received approximately 700 remedial massage sessions. The dispute centred on whether the Applicant continued to suffer from this accepted condition and whether further massage treatment constituted "medical treatment" that was reasonable for her to receive under section 16 of the *Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The decision was made by Theodore Tavoularis SM.

The court was required to determine three key issues: first, whether the Applicant continued to suffer from bilateral epicondylitis as an "injury" for the purposes of section 16 of the Act; second, whether the ongoing massage treatment qualified as "medical treatment" under the Act; and third, whether it was reasonable for the Applicant to obtain such treatment in remediation of her symptoms in relation to the injury.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles of cost-benefit analysis in determining the reasonableness of ongoing treatment, referencing cases such as *Comcare v Holt* and *Comcare v Rope*. The court also had regard to medical evidence, specifically the report of Associate Professor McGill, who assessed the Applicant's condition against the five principles of the Clinical Framework. Associate Professor McGill concluded that ongoing massage treatment did not result in measurable benefit, did not align with a biopsychosocial approach or empower the injured person to manage their injury, did not optimise function or participation, and was not based on the best available research evidence. Based on this evidence, the court found that the Applicant did not continue to suffer from her accepted condition, that the massage treatment was not medical treatment for her accepted condition, and that it was not reasonable for her to continue receiving such treatment.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision under review.