Vinokurov and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Vinokurov against a decision by Comcare regarding his claim for compensation for medical treatment. The applicant sought compensation for ongoing twice-weekly massage therapy, which he contended was reasonable medical treatment for chronic pain stemming from a neck injury sustained during his occupation as a professional violinist. Comcare had disputed the reasonableness of this treatment, arguing it was costly, unlimited in duration, passive, and ineffective.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's twice-weekly massage treatment constituted reasonable medical treatment for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth), and consequently, whether Comcare was liable to pay compensation for this treatment. The central legal issue revolved around the interpretation of "reasonable medical treatment" in the context of chronic pain management and the application of principles outlined in the Clinical Framework, particularly the objective of empowering the injured person to manage their condition independently.

The Tribunal, presided over by A Poljak SM, found that while massage is a passive treatment and can be costly, the applicant's circumstances were unique. The applicant suffered from an abnormal extension deformity in his cervical spine, exacerbated by his profession, and had previously undergone various other treatments with limited success. Medical evidence from his general practitioner and massage therapist consistently indicated that massage provided significant relief from pain, improved his quality of life, and enabled him to function on a daily basis. The Tribunal accepted that the goal of treatment for the applicant, given his age, was to optimise function and empower him to manage his injury, rather than a return to work. The applicant's honesty and his active role in his treatment, including adherence to other recommended programs, were also considered.

The Tribunal concluded that the massage treatment was reasonable medical treatment in the applicant's circumstances and that Comcare was liable to pay compensation under section 16 of the Act for the treatment plan dated 3 October 2017. The decision under review was set aside and substituted with a finding that Comcare was liable for the claimed twice-weekly massage treatment.